Intelligent Design

No Bomb After 10 Years

Spread the love

I have been studying the origins issue for 22 years, and I have been debating the origins issue with literally hundreds of Darwinists for a decade. Here’s a brief report:

I have to admit that when I first started debating the origins issue I did so with some trepidation. After all, there are a lot of highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals who say they believe the Darwinian narrative. To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.

UD has 47,782 registered users. Some of those are duplicates, but it is safe to assume that over 40,000 unique individuals have commented on this site. And I think it is safe to assume also that at least one of those 40,000 individuals is the highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professional who, if they could, would drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID.

Ten years later, 40,000 commenters later. No bomb. I’m beginning to think that maybe there isn’t a bomb. Maybe my confidence in ID is not naïve after all. And maybe WJM is right when he condenses the two sides down to:

ID = proposing and employing methodologies for actually doing the math and attempting to find out if natural law + chance is capable of generating new, functional proteins.

Darwinism = blindly assuming that natural law + chance can and did generate all sets of functional proteins because the alternative is ideologically intolerable, and predicating virtually all of their evolutionary storytelling on that baseless assumption.

1,609 Replies to “No Bomb After 10 Years

  1. 1
    rich says:

    Oh you owe me a new keyboard for the ‘actually doing the math’ comment! 😀

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    rich, your ignorance, while funny, is not some sort of refutation. I provided you with a peer-reviewed paper that actually did the math. As usual you choked.

    You are a fine example of our opponents- proudly ignorant and too cowardly to actually step up and demonstrate how blind and undirected processes could doit.

  3. 3
    rich says:

    For the sake of argument (spoiler – FSC CSI) one paper Joe? Is that all?

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    All it takes is one. But thanks for continuing to prove that you are ignorant wrt science. Why you think that somehow affects ID is beyond me.

  5. 5
    Joe says:

    In contrast there isn’t even one paper that demonstrates natural selection or drift are up to the task.

  6. 6
    rich says:

    Great thread.

    Barry has not been bombed. Perhaps its because they couldn’t find that ONE paper?

    Joe, please give the definitions of FSC and CSI. This will be fun 😀

  7. 7
    Alan Fox says:

    Barry writes:

    UD has 47,782 registered users.

    That’s nothing! UD has been going nearly 10 years. The Skeptical Zone, a toddler of three, has 51,229!

    Of course the vast majority are spam bots at TSZ and I suspect UD has it’s share.

    As a regular reader of UD, I have to say I haven’t noticed these numerous dialogues between Barry and evil evolutionists on substantive matters such as evolutionary theory.

    Does Barry have a favourite evisceration of evolutionary theory that he fondly remembers and would like to remind us of with a link?

  8. 8
    niwrad says:

    Bomb from Darwinists? Be charitable Barry. They are unfortunate people who have to defend the most indefensible “theory” in the history of mankind, a farrago of absurdities inconsistent from all points of view. I would cry if I had to defend such total idiocy.

  9. 9
    Alan Fox says:

    Darwinism = blindly assuming that natural law + chance can and did generate all sets of functional proteins because the alternative is ideologically intolerable, and predicating virtually all of their evolutionary storytelling on that baseless assumption.

    I’m assuming Barry is quoting WJM as an example of a straw man.

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan,

    Zero spam bots among our registered users. We prevent them from registering with that bothersome little “prove you are a human” box. I don’t know why TSZ does not.

  11. 11
    Alan Fox says:

    …the most indefensible “theory” in the history of mankind…

    Now, I can go to many sources and learn about evolutionary theory. I can observe the diversity and adaptedness of life on Earth and I can even conduct simple experiments on selection in my own garden. What I find so far impossible is to get any coherent summary of what a theory of “Intelligent Design” might be.

  12. 12
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich is showing us DDD#15: Chasing Irrelevant Tangents

    Joe, do not encourage him.

  13. 13
    rich says:

    “We prevent them from registering with that bothersome little “prove you are a human” box.”

    Do you really need to check each user every post?

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan @ 7. You do not seem to understand the thrust of the OP. Read it again. If you still don’t understand why your comment at 7 is not germane, read it again and again until you do.

  15. 15
    Barry Arrington says:

    Do you really need to check each user every post?

    Not my area rich. Our webmaster says this is the way we should go and I trust him.

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    ID = proposing and employing methodologies for actually doing the math and attempting to find out if natural law + chance is capable of generating new, functional proteins.

    Darwinism = blindly assuming that natural law + chance can and did generate all sets of functional proteins because the alternative is ideologically intolerable, and predicating virtually all of their evolutionary storytelling on that baseless assumption.

    Sometimes we fall in the oversimplification trap that I find in the posts by most proponents in this site, with a few honorable exceptions like KF and gpuccio.

    To me the capacity to produce functional proteins is highly important, but it seems like that’s just part of the whole puzzle. What about the timing to produce them, or to stop producing them, or the location where they are needed, i.e. the whole spatiotemporal issue? What about the myriad cases where the analyzed mechanisms require certain proteins P1 P2 in order to activate the production of other proteins P3 P4 that are somehow required to produce the proteins P1 P2?
    Also, we don’t have to reproduce a process if we can verify its logic by carefully reviewing a detailed description of it?

  17. 17
    Alan Fox says:

    I don’t know why TSZ does not.

    Actually, we are no longer troubled either but the existing registrations don’t seem to impinge on the site functionality.

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    D @ 16.

    You are correct. WJM’s summary is vastly simplified. For the purposes of the OP, it was an accurate enough summary.

  19. 19
    rich says:

    Barry, You’ve made the claim that the ID side is “doing the math”. But you find the laughable evidence for this claim to be “Chasing Irrelevent Tangents”.

    This is a common ID theme, talk about things, don’t look at details.

  20. 20
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan @ 9. No, here WJM is spot on.

  21. 21
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich @ 19. You also do not seem to understand the thrust of the OP. Read it again. If you still don’t understand why your comment at 19 is not germane, read it again and again until you do.

  22. 22
    Alan Fox says:

    From the OP by Barry:

    I have been debating the origins issue with literally hundreds of Darwinists for a decade.

    Ah, I see the error of my ways. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversification.

    You must have had some frustrating conversations with “Darwinists”, Barry.

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Now, I can go to many sources and learn about evolutionary theory.

    Yet you cannot link to this alleged evolutionary theory. Last you said is we have to read several books and papers and put it together.

    I can observe the diversity and adaptedness of life on Earth and I can even conduct simple experiments on selection in my own garden.

    None of that supports unguided evolution, Alan. Why are you such an equivocator?

    What I find so far impossible is to get any coherent summary of what a theory of “Intelligent Design” might be.

    That is due to your willful ignorance.

  24. 24
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan @ 22. Nope. You still don’t seem to understand the thrust of the OP. Try again.

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Joe, please give the definitions of FSC and CSI.

    I have, in the other thread. You always ignore the evidence so it isn’t any surprise that you missed it. However your ignorance still means nothing. And you still sound like a little snot-nosed brat. Somehow you think that makes you look big and bad as if you are refuting something. Strange

  26. 26
    rich says:

    “I have, in the other thread.”

    Great, I’ll stop reading your post here then as it will be no problem for you to copy and paste them here so we can get the ball rolling.

    I’ll start by focusing on Hazen’s M(Ex) function after you get the definitions up.

    Thanks in advance!

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life on Earth, only its subsequent diversification.

    There isn’t any “theory of evolution” and AGAIN how life originated directly impacts how it diversified. It is only if blind and undirected processes produced life that we would infer it produced the subsequent diversification. OTOH if life was intelligently designed then the inference would be it was designed to evolve, evolved by design and that is how the diversification came about.

    This has been explained to you many times. That you chose to ignore it proves that you are willfully ignorant.

  28. 28
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Barry, You’ve made the claim that the ID side is “doing the math”.

    And that claim is true. OTOH you side isn’t and that is because it doesn’t have anything to work with.

  29. 29
    rich says:

    Barry@21. I have, and perhaps you have missed my point:

    We have low orbiting ion cannons, 3 death stars and more smart munitions than we can count (and we can actually do math.)

    Our problem is target acquisition. Joe has offerd one paper that isn’t actually about CSI. What would you have us bomb?

  30. 30
    keith s says:

    Barry,

    Here’s your bomb: ID is literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence.

    If you truly “follow the evidence wherever it leads”, as IDers like to say, then you will abandon ID as an explanation for biodiversity.

  31. 31
    rich says:

    To be fair, Joe is doing his own sort of math, ‘proving’ Cantor is wrong and ‘looking for the largest known number’. It’s all on his blog, we eagerly await the results.

  32. 32
    Alan Fox says:

    Bary says WJM is spot on when he writes:

    Darwinism = blindly assuming that natural law + chance can and did generate all sets of functional proteins because the alternative is ideologically intolerable, and predicating virtually all of their evolutionary storytelling on that baseless assumption.

    Evolutionary theory proposes that natural selection (or if you like environmental design) results in differential survival of alleles (the source of variation being mutation, duplication, meiotic shuffling etc). There is no need for evolution to “find” all functional proteins. “Just good enough” to survive is all that is needed. And remember there is a vast unknown number of protein sequences that do not exist in nature but we can’t assume that there is not also a vast subset of potentially functional proteins still waiting to be stumbled upon by the rinse-and-repeat of variation and selection.

    WJMs summary is indeed a straw man.

    If only I had the chance to build a straw man of ID theory. But I need the real ID theory to do that!

  33. 33
    Dionisio says:

    The deeper researchers dig into the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies seen within the biological systems, the more designed they look. The latest reports published in top journals seem to confirm this at an increasing rate. The information avalanche coming out of research is overwhelming. Supercomputers are not sufficient to process all that data. Just read all that taking place right now. The diversification of biology-related careers in the last years could not have been imagined a couple of decades ago. Just the fact that interdisciplinary research teams work on the most important biology research makes us realize the complexity of the systems we are dealing with in biology.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    as to casting doubt on common descent, well there is that little New York Times bestseller that Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote:

    Darwin on the rocks – Sept. 19, 2014
    Q&A | DNA and Cambrian fossils, says Stephen Meyer, make macroevolutionary theory increasingly untenable
    Excerpt: What you found in the Cambrian was 23 distinct body plans, and fully 20 of those first appeared in the Cambrian. There are only about 27 body plans that have been preserved in the fossil records, total. So you can see this is a big event in the history of life.
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/0....._the_rocks

    In the following audio podcast, Dr. Stephen Meyer speaks on the insurmountable difficulty of extrapolating the neo-Darwinian mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as a explanation for the Cambrian Explosion:

    Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_22-07_00

    Dr. Meyer’s interview with C-SPAN’s BookTV, a comprehensive discussion of Darwin’s Doubt: Summer 2013 http://www.booktv.org/Watch/14.....esign.aspx

    Dr. Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design – video –
    (lecture delivered at Faith Bible Church – May 2014)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0

    Socrates in the City – “Darwin’s Doubt” Eric Metaxas with Stephen Meyer – video
    https://vimeo.com/81215936

    If anyone has not read Darwin’s Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter ‘cliff notes’ video series on the book here:

    Darwin’s Doubt – Paul Giem – video playlist
    http://www.youtube.com/playlis.....Ow3u0_mK8t

  35. 35
    Alan Fox says:

    In response to my question:

    You must have had some frustrating conversations with “Darwinists”, Barry.

    Barry responds:

    Nope. You still don’t seem to understand the thrust of the OP. Try again.

    Now I am puzzled. You (nor the hundreds of “Darwinists) were frustrated during these conversations on origins (of life, presumably)?

  36. 36
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Joe has offerd one paper that isn’t actually about CSI.

    Umm it is about CSI. I explained how it is about CSI. Your ignorance still means nothing.

    As far as Cantor, well I explained that too. Obviously you choked on that.

  37. 37
    rich says:

    Dionisio, and the corresponding number of CSI calculations and design inferences has……?

  38. 38
    rich says:

    If you could post those definitions that would be great Joe, so we could talk about them. I’d hate for you to look like you were bluffing.

    Thanks in advance!

  39. 39
    HeKS says:

    @BA77 #34

    That Paul Giem series looks great. Thanks for posting that.

  40. 40
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ keiths- Unguided evolution does not and cannot explain nested hierarchies. Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics which would ruin any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy. Theobald’s article has NOTHING to do with unguided evolution.

    Unguided evolution explains disease and deformities better than ID. But that is about it.

  41. 41
    Dionisio says:

    rich @ 37

    I don’t understand your question. Can you write more clear?
    Thank you.

  42. 42
    Joe says:

    Here ya go rich:

    Measuring CSI in Biology- a Repost

    Short version- both FSC and CSI (wrt biology) pertain to Crick’s definition and Orgel’s context.

    Why do you think that being a little snot-nosed brat is a good debating platform?

  43. 43
    rich says:

    I quite liked your paragraph about the explosion of data (I agree with the complexity part but not the design part) – all of this should be fueling ID research, No? You guys must now be calculating CSI left and right?

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Anybody who has debated Darwinists on the internet has probably been ‘bombed’ by a TalkOrigins FAQ. This podcast reveals the bankruptcy of the actual evidence behind these FAQs and reveals that they are nothing more than literature bluffs;

    Talk Origins Full of Claims but Short on Real Evidence – Casey Luskin – podcast – February 2012
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....8_59-08_00

    Here is part 2 of the podcast

    Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims – Casey Luskin – February 2012
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_41-08_00

    Does Natural Selection Leave “Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome”? More Problems with Matzke’s Critique of Darwin’s Doubt – Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
    Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75171.html

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html

    Scientific method: Statistical errors – P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. – Regina Nuzzo – 12 February 2014
    Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can’t,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,,
    “Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then ‘laws’ handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They’re actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,,
    One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,,
    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
    Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

  45. 45
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Evolutionary theory proposes that natural selection (or if you like environmental design) results in differential survival of alleles (the source of variation being mutation, duplication, meiotic shuffling etc).

    Nope.For one “environmental design” is nonsense in the context of blind and undirected processes. And differential survival of alleles can occur for many reasons, natural selection is only one way.

    There is no need for evolution to “find” all functional proteins.

    It can’t even find one unless it has many to work with. And even when it is posited to have found one it is only because it was assumed to have done it.

  46. 46
    Barry Arrington says:

    keith s @ 30.

    Your article consists of sneers and theological arguments about how a designer “woodna dun it that way.” It does not demonstrate how natural forces create Orgel’s CSI. That’s what I need. I will quote myself from earlier today:

    And just as soon as you show us an example – FOR GOD’S SAKE THORTON WE WILL GO AWAY IF YOU WILL GIVE US EVEN ONE EXAMPLE – of natural forces creating Orgel’s CSI, we will back off on that claim. [question begging not allowed]

    The science bomb that will destroy my belief in ID: A single example of natural forces observed to have create Orgel’s CSI.

    The Darwinist says natural forces create CSI routinely. Yet they are unable to point to a single non-question begging example.

    The ID proponent says there are very good reasons to believe that natural forces are unable to create CSI. The ID proponent also says, we observe intelligent agents creating CSI all the time. Putting those two things together, the ID proponent concludes that the best explanation for the CSI that Orgel saw in living things is “act of intelligent agent.” Again, keith, you can blow that conclusion to kingdom come with a single example. I’m waiting (as I have been for the last 10 years).

  47. 47
    Joe says:

    rich- no need to keep calculating CSI. It is done. You lost. Get over it

  48. 48
    rich says:

    Thanks Joe. So Joe asserts:

    “If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I. Just read this OP.”

    Do the rest of the ID camp agree with this.

    As they are the same,Joe, I’ll be content with just one definition that you’re happy to stand behind.

    Thanks in advance.

  49. 49
    Alan Fox says:

    Dionisio

    The deeper researchers dig into the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies seen within the biological systems, the more designed they look. The latest reports published in top journals seem to confirm this at an increasing rate.

    Are you sure you haven’t been watching some video cartoon showing molecules trundling around as if on an assembly line? Life is not like the video model. I see “choreography” does appear in the title of several papers in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. I doubt this has anything to do with “Intelligent Design”. I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

  50. 50
    Joe says:

    How many times do we have to go over and over the same thing rich? Why do you think your childish badgering means something?

    I need to know the answers to these questions before I can continue with you. Otherwise I will just sit back and continue to expose your dishonesty, ignorance and whining.

  51. 51
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich @ 29. Yes, by all means bomb us. Please meet the challenge I posed to keiths at 46. Just one example. That’s all I’m asking.

  52. 52
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Life is not like the video model.

    Whatever Alan. If your position could account for life we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Yet your position has been a complete failure at explaining life and its diversity.

    Grow up and deal with it.

  53. 53
    rich says:

    You would like us to bomb a thing you yourselves can’t even provide?

    Sneaky!

  54. 54
    Joe says:

    We have provided it, rich. Your willful ignorance and childish antics are not refutations.

    Nice try

  55. 55
    rich says:

    Just need one definition (As they are all the same*, according to you). Thanks Joe.

    Do any other IDists agree with this?

  56. 56
    Barry Arrington says:

    Joe and rich. I am gaveling your off topic discussion. Joe, I don’t expect rich to care; he has every interest in changing the subject. I do expect you to stop helping him drag the discussion off on a tangent.

    The thrust of the OP has nothing to do with whether CSI is measurable. It has to do with the following question: Is the current evolutionary paradigm supportable without question begging metaphysical assumptions being imposed on the data?

    After 10 years of debate, the answer seems to be “no.” If anyone believes the answer is “yes,” all you have to do to drop a science bomb on us and destroy ID is meet the challenge I set forth in 46.

  57. 57
    rich says:

    Okay great – can you just post it here for us all, so others can follow along? Thanks in advance!

  58. 58
    Alan Fox says:

    Barry writes:

    …the ID proponent concludes that the best explanation for the CSI that Orgel saw in living things is “act of intelligent agent.”

    But that’s vacuous. ID starts and stops with that “best explanation”. There is no “ID” explanation.

    Nitpick: Leslie Orgel coined the term “specified complexity” to distinguish living organisms from non-living matter.

  59. 59
    Joe says:

    My apologies, Barry. I linked to my blog in the hopes of not muddying yours but it didn’t work.

    I’m out

  60. 60
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich your comment @ 53 is incoherent. I am not surprised.

  61. 61
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    But that’s vacuous. ID starts and stops with that “best explanation”. There is no “ID” explanation.

    You say that as if it means something. Strange.

  62. 62
    Alan Fox says:

    Oops forgot to close tag

    From “But that’s vacuous” is me writing.

  63. 63
    Dionisio says:

    43 rich

    I quite liked your paragraph about the explosion of data (I agree with the complexity part but not the design part)

    You don’t have to agree with my posts or any parts of them. I’m not a politician or a TV News anchor, hence I’m not looking for votes or to increase my approval ratings or to widen my audience. Don’t need any of that. 🙂

    Now, let’s get to business:

    What do you mean by “…but not the design part”?

    Why not? What you don’t like about it?

  64. 64
    rich says:

    No problem Barry.Happy to continue Joe’s “FSC = CSI = FSCIO” on anther thread if there’s interest.

    But I must note:

    Barry: “The science bomb that will destroy my belief in ID: A single example of natural forces observed to have create Orgel’s CSI.”

    but then

    Barry: “The thrust of the OP has nothing to do with whether CSI is measurable.”

  65. 65
    Alan Fox says:

    Barry asks;

    Is the current evolutionary paradigm supportable without question begging metaphysical assumptions being imposed on the data?

    If you mean “are there gaps in the theory” then of course you are correct. But at least there is a theory. And what evidence we have so far does not disprove the theory. But I can’t say the same of ID theory as there doesn’t seem to be one. Or at least not one that has entailments or makes testable predictions.

  66. 66
    rich says:

    Barry, I’m sorry you didn’t understand it.

  67. 67
    News says:

    Barry, there IS no bomb. There is no theory of the origin of life that makes any sense at all. I spent years studying this. and came up with why it can’t be true in the way people are funded to say.

    It’s just that there is no other way they can be funded.

  68. 68
    ppolish says:

    There is a bomb in development that has devastating potential. If not an A-bomb, at least a Daisy Cutter.

    Starts with an admission of Design. Not appearance but actual Design. Then argues for Natural Causes of Design. Atheist Thomas
    Nagel is part of the Bomb Development Team. Third Way Evolution guys/gals working on it too.

    Natural Teleological Bomb. Evidence of Design is overwhelming.

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    There is not even a firecracker to Darwinism. Not even a sparkler. Not even a pop gun… Its all the wizard of OZ behind the curtain.

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

  70. 70
    rich says:

    We’ve not been bombed!
    We’ve not been bombed in a specific place!
    We’ve not been bombed in a specific place that may or may not exist!

    Is there some corresponding fallacy for this 😉

    I *love* you guys.

  71. 71
    Alan Fox says:

    Denyse writes with characteristic clarity:

    There is no theory of the origin of life that makes any sense at all. I spent years studying this. and came up with why it can’t be true in the way people are funded to say.

    This is almost true, Denyse. There are abiogenesis theories. What there isn’t is any real supporting evidence for any of them. All we can say is life must have arisen on Earth some time after it was cool enough for liquid water to form and not after the earliest indications of life show up in the fossil record.

  72. 72
    Barry Arrington says:

    If you mean “are there gaps in the theory”

    No. That is not what I mean.

  73. 73
    Dionisio says:

    49 Alan Fox

    Well, what can I tell you?

    Просто молодец!

    I’ll be back… 🙂

  74. 74
    Barry Arrington says:

    Or at least not one that has entailments or makes testable predictions.

    Again, you don’t seem to understand the thrust of the OP.

    An entailment of ID and a testable prediction that it makes is that natural forces will NEVER be observed to have created CSI.

    Again, all you have to do is show me ONE EXAMPLE (sorry for shouting, but I don’t seem to be getting through) of natural forces having been observed to create CSI, and I will abandon ID, become a devout Darwinist, and shut this website down.

    The challenge has been on the table since comment 46. No one has even taken a stab at it, much less met it. This is me not holding my breath.

  75. 75
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ppolish @ 68.

    Yes, if the project Nagel suggests in his book succeeds, it will destroy ID. But Nagel is honest enough to admit that he has no idea how the project can succeed based on our current understanding of the data.

  76. 76
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich @ 70.

    Your comment would be amusing on the other side of your having met the challenge at 46. Not having addressed that challenge (much less met it), it is not amusing. It is kind of pathetic actually.

  77. 77
    Collin says:

    Alan Fox, in comment # 7 you said, “Does Barry have a favourite evisceration of evolutionary theory that he fondly remembers and would like to remind us of with a link?”

    Here are a couple of my favorites.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ral-world/

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....f-toronto/

  78. 78
    Alan Fox says:

    Barry asks:

    Again, all you have to do is show me ONE EXAMPLE (sorry for shouting, but I don’t seem to be getting through) of natural forces having been observed to create CSI, and I will abandon ID, become a devout Darwinist, and shut this website down

    Well, no problem. Your challenge is unanswerable. Until we establish what “CSI” is nobody can do that. You ask the impossible!

  79. 79
    Barry Arrington says:

    Alan,

    I would have bet $10,000 that would be your next gambit.

    Leslie Orgel from 1973:

    living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity

    Your next gambit will be: Orgel was talking about something else. Fail. He was talking about exactly the same thing.

    Thanks for admitting there is no bomb. That is the point of the OP. Pass.

  80. 80
    Alan Fox says:

    He was talking about exactly the same thing.

    And what thing was that? What is “CSI”?

  81. 81
    Thorton says:

    Barry said

    The science bomb that will destroy my belief in ID: A single example of natural forces observed to have create Orgel’s CSI.

    Orgel never used the term “complex specified information”. He only referred in general terms to the “specified complexity” of living objects and never tried to quantify it or claim it represent evidence of an outside creating intelligence. Dembski was the one who came up with “CSI” as a way of supporting his “looks designed to me!” claims. It was a miserable failure. The fact is there is no objective way to determine the “CSI” in any real world object. “CSI” is nothing more a hopelessly vague empty talking point for ID proponents.

    Barry or any ID proponent can easily prove me wrong by calculating the CSI in the raw diamond and cut diamond that were just shown today. Use the CSI values to show how the second was designed but the first wasn’t. I guarantee not a single ID proponent here can do it.

  82. 82
    Thorton says:

    Barry said

    An entailment of ID and a testable prediction that it makes is that natural forces will NEVER be observed to have created CSI.

    Since CSI is an undefined and completely subjective quantity the whole basis of ID’s “prediction” is worthless. Such empty rhetorical challenges sound impressive to the scientifically ignorant but do absolutely nothing to sway the real scientific community.

  83. 83
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Collin

    Those are not examples of Barry discussing with “Darwinists”.

  84. 84
    Collin says:

    I do not know if CSI can be calculated. If it is not amenable to quantification, then it is weakened concept.

    But not a useless concept. It may be a quality that an objective person could identify in an object. Such as the color red. Long before we knew what light was, objective people could agree that the sky was blue, grass was green and blood was red. Perhaps CSI is like that.

    I think that design, in general, is like that. Richard Dawkins clearly thinks that life appears to be designed for a purpose. It just says it’s an illusion. I think that this is an admission that the burden of proof is on him to show it is an illusion instead of a reality.

  85. 85
    Collin says:

    @ Alan Fox,

    My humblest apologies.

  86. 86
    Thorton says:

    Collin @ 84

    I do not know if CSI can be calculated. If it is not amenable to quantification, then it is weakened concept.

    But not a useless concept. It may be a quality that an objective person could identify in an object. Such as the color red. Long before we knew what light was, objective people could agree that the sky was blue, grass was green and blood was red. Perhaps CSI is like that.

    The whole point of “CSI” was that is was suppose to be an objectively quantifiable property that was a sure indicator of intelligent design. Having it be the completely subjective, vaguely defined concept that in reality it is makes it no better than “looks designed to me!!”.

  87. 87
    Dionisio says:

    49 Alan Fox
    Well, what can I tell you?

    Просто молодец!

    AF: Are you sure you haven’t been watching some video cartoon showing molecules trundling around as if on an assembly line? Life is not like the video model.

    I know is not like a video model. Actually, unwittingly, you have brought up a good point. Thank you.
    Years ago, after working for a number of years on engineering design software development, I dared to look into a medical textbook that one of my children had left home, after finishing their medical careers. Usually they sold their textbooks back to the university library, obviously at a much lower price than we had paid for them. But for some unknown to me reasons, this textbook was kept home. The book was about human development. In the introduction, the first paragraph mentioned a nonscientific term that surprised me. This first paragraph got completely removed from more recent editions of the same book. I don’t know why, but one can easily suspect that the politically incorrect term could be part of the problem.
    I can provide more details on that later. Let’s just move on.
    When I read the brief description of the processes that take place in the first week of embryonic development, I thought it would be cool to create a software for interactive learning of biology, using the computer game software technology. That could motivate young folks, specially boys, to pursue science careers, which are generally considered too difficult and boring.
    First I needed to get familiar with some terminology and concepts associated with developmental biology. I took some free online courses provided by some universities. While on this slow learning process I realized this whole biology thing was more complex and difficult than anything I had worked on before. Any attempt to model and simulate this on a 4D software would require a much bigger effort than I had expected. The software development project had to be put on a shelf for a while, so that I could focus in on the intensive learning (autodidact).
    If you follow the research reports closely, and for practical purposes concentrate on a narrow area of interest, you may notice that every new discovery, many times ‘unexpectedly’ raises new questions, regardless of whether it answers some of the outstanding questions they were trying to answer. It gives the impression of a Never-Ending story. But that could be just a subjective perception. 🙂
    Back to your original statement “life is not like a video model”, now you can see that I have a pretty good idea that it is not indeed. Actually, even in vitro experiments are not quite like in vivo reality. For example, see this very recent report:

    Shaking up cell biology: [NIH] Researchers focus in on decades-old mitochondrial mystery

    The mitochondria also appear to synchronize their movements not only in an individual cell but, quite unexpectedly, into a linked network of oscillators vibrating throughout the tissue.

    “You look through the microscope, and it almost looks like a synchronized dance,” said Weigert. “The synchronization, to borrow an old cliché, tells us that we need to differentiate the forest from the trees—and vice versa—when studying mitochondria. It may be that the forest holds the key to understanding how mitochondria function in human health and disease.”

    This finding suggests that the oscillations likely are not inherent to mitochondria but a response to conditions in their environment.

    These findings emphasize how important it is scientifically to study biology on its own terms, not under artificial laboratory conditions,” said Natalie Porat-Shliom, an NIDCR scientist and lead author on the paper. “We saw things in live animals that you don’t see in cell culture. The reasons, in this case, very well may be that the mitochondria continue to receive an influx of signals from the blood vessels, the nervous system, and their surrounding environment. The entire system can’t be reassembled in cell culture.”

    Here’s the link to the report:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520623

    Later I will try to comment on the other topics you wrote in your post #49 (see below). I think you and I can have a mutually beneficial chat here. I’ll be back… 🙂

    AF: I see “choreography” does appear in the title of several papers in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. I doubt this has anything to do with “Intelligent Design”.

    AF: I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

  88. 88
    Barry Arrington says:

    Thorton, is that all you’ve got? Pretending that something does not exist in order to avoid having to deal with it?

    Pathetic.

  89. 89
    Box says:

    Thorton: The whole point of “CSI” was that is was suppose to be an objectively quantifiable property that was a sure indicator of intelligent design. Having it be the completely subjective, vaguely defined concept that in reality it is makes it no better than “looks designed to me!!”.

    Call me old-fashioned, completely subjective, vague, anti-science or whatever, but this sentence by Thorton surely “looks designed to me!!”

  90. 90
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    The whole point of “CSI” was that is was suppose to be an objectively quantifiable property that was a sure indicator of intelligent design.

    And it is. It is more objective than anything evoltutionism has to offer.

  91. 91
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Until we establish what “CSI” is nobody can do that.

    We have defined what CSI is- we have established what it is.

    Why do you guys think that your willful ignorance is some sort of argument?

  92. 92
    Heartlander says:

    Box @ 89

    Sorry – but his sentence cannot be designed until it can be deemed an objectively quantifiable property – and show the math… In fact, this sentence and all others must also be scrutinized by this same method.

    Looks like it’s back to drawing pictures on cave walls for us all…

  93. 93
    rich says:

    Barry at 76:

    Let’s be clear about this. You’re asking us to show evolution creating a thing we don’t think is a real concept that IDist have been unable to demonstrate and you’re not sure can be measured.

    That’s the sort of thing that would have running off and creating a new post if we did it.

    Next week: Naturalism can’t create ghosts?

  94. 94
    Mapou says:

    I am not a Darwinist but, IMO, there is one argument that the Darwinist camp makes that has not been refuted by anybody that I know of. Essentially, they argue that if there is a chance for something to happen, eventually it will happen. Now the ID camp frequently points out the statistical unlikeliness of complex organisms. It is a good argument but I don’t think it refutes the Darwinist claim. Something is missing.

  95. 95
    Barry Arrington says:

    rich

    creating a thing we don’t think is a real concept

    Pretending something does not exist in order to avoid dealing with it and thereby preserving your faith commitments, does cause it not to exist. Orgel understood that it exists.

  96. 96
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Here is an equation to put on a tee-shirt.

    CSI=NCF

    In plain English….. Complex Specified Information is not computable.

    That is what IDers are trying to say when we say that CSI can not be the result of a Darwinian evolution.

    Evolution is in reality just an algorithm and non computable functions like CSI can not be arrived at using an algorithm.

    The precise information content of NCFs can not be calculated by definition because to do so would render them computable.

    What is the information content of ? for example?

    Does this mean that ? is subjective or of no scientific value

    hardly

    Peace

  97. 97
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    “?” should read PIE]

    Greek fonts did not paste correctly

  98. 98
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mapou,

    Yes, we have dealt with this. Many times. It is the logical fallacy of “appeal to infinite possibilities.” Here is one example of having dealt with it.

  99. 99
    rich says:

    Barry at 95:

    Then fill books with CSI calcs and show them to us: let us per your unicorns, have the emperor let us try on his new clothes.

    This is fair, I think.

  100. 100
    rich says:

    96: CSI is non computable.

    Okay…

    Do you all agree?
    Has anyone told Dembski?

    Also from various threads is the issue OOL and Evolution or just OOL you guys are against?

  101. 101
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87 follow-up]

    AF: I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

    Would the article referred in my post #87 satisfy your request?
    There are about 550 article links posted in the third way thread in this site.

  102. 102
    Thorton says:

    Thorton, is that all you’ve got? Pretending that something does not exist in order to avoid having to deal with it?

    Pathetic.

    Pretending that something like “CSI” does exist and be completely unable to calculate it, demonstrate it, or even rigorously define it ten years after Kitzmiller v. Dover is worse than pathetic.

    Still no CSI calculations from the ID peanut gallery I see.

  103. 103
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Thorton, don’t rock the boat or you will be put in moderation like Tintinnid for having the temerity for actually commenting on Barry’s behaviour.

  104. 104
    Joe says:

    Barry- No bomb but they are doing their best to gas us. 😛

  105. 105
    Thorton says:

    It’s Barry’s board, Barry can behave as churlishly as he wants. I’d just like to finally get some straight answers from the ID crowd like some actual real world CSI calculations. I’m not holding my breath.

  106. 106
    Joe says:

    Timmy- CSI comes from Crick’s concept of biological information. It definitely exists and is very much part of biology. That said I have linked to how to calculate it complete with calculations. So shut up already- you are nothing but a whiney cry-baby.

  107. 107
    Heartlander says:

    If only Darwin’s Origin was subjected to this same scrutiny. A vague theory that has been shown to be riddled with problems and updated with more vague theories to continue the narrative.

  108. 108
    rich says:

    Hey guys – we’ve got dialogue going. That’s a good thing.

  109. 109
    Joe says:

    fifthmonarchyman:

    In plain English….. Complex Specified Information is not computable.

    That is what IDers are trying to say when we say that CSI can not be the result of a Darwinian evolution.

    That is not correct. We can calculate it, we have calculated it and that is why we know it isn’t the result of Darwinain evolution or NDE.

  110. 110
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Hey guys – we’ve got dialogue going.

    No, rich, we don’t. We have you and your ilk flailing away at ID because you have nothing better to offer. It is entertaining though.

  111. 111
    Thorton says:

    Still no CSI calculations or even a methodology for such calculations despite the posturing. Same as always.

  112. 112
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Joe

    I disagree. The best we can do is say that X probably has at least a certain number of bits of information defined as the assumed probability of it arriving by chance .

    This is not the same as calculating the actual information content.

    I’m willing to be proven wrong though can you point me to the calculations you mention

  113. 113
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Here is another equation for a Tee-shirt

    IC= CII

    in plain English

    Irreducible complexity = Complex Integrated Information.

    This has also been demonstrated to be non-computable

    Google “Complex Integrated Information Computable”

    To see what I mean

    peace

  114. 114
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    Still no CSI calculations or even a methodology for such calculations despite the posturing.

    And yet I provided a link in comment 42 that fulfills all of those requirements.

    Lame, Timmah, really lame.

  115. 115
    Joe says:

    fifthmonarchyman- If all you are saying is we may not be able to get the exact number then that is fine. If you are saying we cannot calculate if it is present or not then we disagree.

    However seeing that they cannot provide the probability for any of the calculations, and it is up to them to do so because theirs is the side based on chance, getting an exact number via probabilities is impossible.

  116. 116
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, the Mona Lisa has unmeasurable CSI, unmeasurable Beauty, unmeasurable Quality. Asking for a “calculation” is a bit silly. Just a bit.

    “And what is good, Phaedrus,
    And what is not good—
    Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”

  117. 117
    Querius says:

    Dionisio @ 33 noted

    The deeper researchers dig into the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies seen within the biological systems, the more designed they look. The latest reports published in top journals seem to confirm this at an increasing rate. The information avalanche coming out of research is overwhelming.

    That’s why I believe ID serves science the best when we simply assume that biological systems are designed, but not make any attempts at speculating about the designer. Then, ID as a paradigm is both defensible and compelling on a purely pragmatic basis.

    ID is the assumption that biological systems are designed by an intelligent agency. That’s it.

    Yes, my definition of ID differs from Barry’s. For those who reject the ID paradigm for ideological reasons, my response is, “Ok, it seems that God probably exists. Deal with it and stop screwing up science to protect your personal issues.”

    -Q

  118. 118
    Joe says:

    The Mona Lisa exhibits counterflow and work. ppolish is correct in that objects do not readily lend themselves to CSI calculations. Any information that can be measured using Shannon methodology is what CSI is best used for.

  119. 119
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101 follow-up]

    AF: I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

    Would the article referred in my post #87 satisfy your request?
    There are about 550 article links posted in the third way thread in this site.
    I’ll try to find another report from another source. I understand the top sources are the peer-reviewed journals with higher impact. I don’t know in they include the stats about fraud too. 🙂

  120. 120
    keith s says:

    Barry:

    Your article consists of sneers and theological arguments about how a designer “woodna dun it that way.”

    No, it’s a quantitative argument showing that the odds of ID being true are less than one in a trillion.

    Also, it does show that evolution can produce Orgel’s specified complexity. After all, terrestrial life includes many instances of specified complexity, and my argument shows that the diversity of terrestrial life was produced by unguided processes, not by design.

    I’ve placed the bomb in front of you, Barry. Can you defuse it? Will you run for safety and let someone else deal with it? Or will you allow it to explode, and then stagger out of the smoke, dazed and singed like Wile E. Coyote, while insisting that there was no explosion at all?

    The spotlight’s on you, Barry.

  121. 121
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Joe,

    That we can never get to the exact number in calculating CSI is exactly the point!!

    ID is simply the scientific observation that there are real things that can not be produced by algorithms.

    Unthinking algorithms are simply the opposite of intelligent agents.

    As far as Calculating if CSI is present we do the same thing that we do to verify that the digits of PIE never repeat. We crunch the numbers until we satisfy ourselves.

    We can never absolutely prove that PIE is not computable but rational observers will agree.

    The burden of proof is on those who would deny the existence of non computable things.

    I wish them luck solving the halting problem

    peace

  122. 122
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    AF: I see “choreography” does appear in the title of several papers in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. I doubt this has anything to do with “Intelligent Design”.

    Yes, words like choreography and orchestration appear in some biology related literature, but that might be associated with the personal musical education of the authors, not related to any ID. After all, have you ever heard of a choreography created by an intelligent agent? Aren’t they just the product of un-guided processes in music and ballet? The use of those terms by science authors should be taken with caution, though. Most of these authors are serious scientists who are busy working hard on their difficult research projects, trying to figure out how the complex biological mechanisms function, hence they don’t have time to squander on senseless discussions about OOL like many of us do here. 🙂

  123. 123
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    No, it’s a quantitative argument showing that the odds of ID being true are less than one in a trillion.

    No, it is a proven load of garbage that you think is a quantitative argument. And that you think your well refuted tripe does something just proves that you are beyond help.

  124. 124
    Joe says:

    Thank you fifthmonarchyman.

  125. 125
    Mung says:

    Thorton:

    It’s Barry’s board, Barry can behave as churlishly as he wants. I’d just like to finally get some straight answers from the ID crowd like some actual real world CSI calculations. I’m not holding my breath.

    Hold your breath long enough and I’ll calculate the CSI.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  126. 126
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    No, it’s a quantitative argument showing that the odds of ID being true are less than one in a trillion.

    Your lame arguments were defused months ago. Get over it.

  127. 127
    keith s says:

    Mung:

    Your lame arguments were defused months ago. Get over it.

    Where, and by whom? Link, please.

  128. 128
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    Where, and by whom? Link, please.

    In the same threads where you made them. You already provided the links.

  129. 129
    Thorton says:

    Ppolish @ 116

    Thornton, the Mona Lisa has unmeasurable CSI, unmeasurable Beauty, unmeasurable Quality. Asking for a “calculation” is a bit silly. Just a bit.

    I agree. But I’m not the one pushing the idea that “CSI” can be objectively calculated and used as an indicator for conscious Design.

  130. 130
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton,

    Does a fact have to be computable in order to be an objective indicator?

    Is PIE a subjective concept?

    peace

  131. 131
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman @130

    Does a fact have to be computable in order to be an objective indicator?

    In the case of CSI it does since that’s the whole purpose CSI was proposed. Merely saying “Gee it looks like a bunch of CSI to me!” is no different and just as worthless as saying “Gee it looks designed to me!”.

    Is PIE a subjective concept?

    PIE? Apple pie? Peach pie?

  132. 132
    keith s says:

    I call Mung’s bluff, and he promptly folds. Why am I not surprised?

  133. 133
    ppolish says:

    Thornton & Kieth, Pi is awesome. It’s in cosmology, number theory, statistics, fractals, thermodynamics, mechanics and electromagnetism.

    Is that accidental? Purposeless? Random and Unguided?

    Rhetorical question really.

  134. 134
    Joe says:

    keiths- I have shown your arguments to be total crap- the short version is in this thread.

    Why am I not surprised that you ignored it?

  135. 135
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    But I’m not the one pushing the idea that “CSI” can be objectively calculated and used as an indicator for conscious Design.

    You are the one whining like a little baby because your position has nothing and all you can do is flail away and obfuscate.

  136. 136
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    This is a 2012 textbook, not a journal, but still very interesting:

    Transcriptional Switches During Development

    …a major challenge resides in understanding the logic and physical elements implementing these regulatory interactions within a given cell in a developing organism.

    A central problem to be addressed is how transcriptional programs are set up and then modified throughout the successive steps of embryonic development.

    different scales of analysis are required together to solve the problem of gene expression control during development.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520543

  137. 137
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton,

    No the concept of CSI is proposed to describe a phenomenon that we observe in nature and draw attention to the fact that it cannot be be produced by natural ie algorithmic processes

    PIE “PI” is another non-computable number that when multiplied by the squared radius of a circle gives you it’s area.

    Is it a subjective concept?

    Peace

  138. 138
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Ppolish: “Is that accidental? Purposeless? Random and Unguided?”

    Yes. Circumference divided by diameter. Or is it radius, I always forget. What is so magical about that?

  139. 139
    Learned Hand says:

    Frankly, even if ID proponents could show a rigorous calculation of CSI I would be dubious. That’s at least partly because I can’t follow the math involved, so I’d have to defer to the opinion of experts. Since so vanishingly few experts (biologists, statisticians, etc.) are persuaded by ID’s arguments, I’d be skeptical even if a calculation appeared on the front page of UD tomorrow and all the local IDists agreed with it.

    One way to shortcut that skepticism is for ID to deliver what I think would be an actual “bomb” – empirical success. I once asked Dr. Dembski in person whether it would be possible for IDists to test their design detection tools under controlled circumstances, to demonstrate that they actually work. He seemed, in my opinion, taken aback, as if the idea was absurd. For all I know, he does believe it’s a bad idea; after all this time making no progress, even Dr. Dembski must suspect that his design detection toolkit can’t actually detect design.

    I’d like to see such empirical testing because I think it would minimize, although not remove, the subjectivity that makes the OP terribly naive. As I think I’ve mentioned at ATBC, I’m in the very slow process of writing a book about how people form and pursue irrational beliefs. During my research and interviews I’ve talked to many otherwise intelligent, reasonable people who believe in things that virtually all of us would call irrational: 9/11 truthers, Bigfoot believers, tax protesters, sovereign citizens, etc.

    What those people have in common with the OP, and with every other human being, is that we just don’t change our beliefs on a dime. It’s virtually unheard of for a “bomb” to be dropped in a conversation that results in people abandoning beliefs they’ve cherished and defended for so long.

    I think what would happen is what happens whenever someone gives Barry Arrington an argument they think suffices: he would disagree. Not dishonestly, but sincerely, because we find it very easy to sincerely believe in things that satisfy us. (Bryan Caplan has an interesting economic model of this called Rational Irrationality.)

    Of course, that holds true for everyone. Even in the sciences, when actual evidence emerges people don’t abandon the old paradigm overnight. It takes time and, perhaps more than anything else, indisputable empirical results.

    So far, ID hasn’t managed to produce results that convince anyone but those who were already predisposed to believe in it. And I don’t think it’s going to until someone takes the plunge and implements a version of the ID toolkit that’s actually testable under controlled circumstances. But I don’t think that’s ever really going to happen, because I don’t think the ID tools are robust enough to take that step. In other words, while they work just fine creating a logical justification to support a preexisting belief in design, they don’t work to test whether design exists under controlled circumstances.

    Obviously the IDists here won’t agree. I wonder, then, what’s the rationale for not testing ID’s design-detection tools under controlled circumstances? If CSI works as advertised, why not demonstrate it? Wouldn’t that be the natural next step if its supporters were confident that it works?

  140. 140
    ppolish says:

    Pi is found in many Scientifically Fundamental & Deep Equations. Not by chance sorry.

    Fractals are drenched in CSI. Drenched. Simple equation too.

    http://youtu.be/nkwCl0ymTfg

  141. 141
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101, #119 follow-up]

    AF: I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

    Would the article referred in my post #87 satisfy your request?
    There are about 550 article links posted in the third way thread in this site.
    I’ll try to find another report from another source. I understand the top sources are the peer-reviewed journals with higher impact factor and stuff like that. I don’t know if they include the stats about fraud, plagiarism, retraction, etc. But let’s assume that most reports are seriously peer-reviewed and not just peer-inflated. 🙂

    Here’s a report from the Cell Neuron journal:

    Illuminating the Multifaceted Roles of Neurotransmission in Shaping Neuronal Circuitry

    Across the nervous system, neurons form highly stereotypic patterns of synaptic connections that are designed to serve specific functions.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-520069

    …designed to serve specific functions?

    Oops! Hold on, I think I copied the wrong source? Let’s check this out:

    http://www.cell.com/neuron/ by Elsevier Inc.

    Oh, it seems to be from a peer-reviewed journal?

    h’mmm that’s strange, how did they let that politically incorrect word into their text? Didn’t they notice it?

    Oh, maybe their editorial system got hacked and changed the text right after it was published?

    Let’s see, when was this published? Maybe it’s old material after all?
    Volume 83, Issue 6, p1303–1318, 17 September 2014

    Well, it doesn’t seem too old… hmmm… still don’t get it…

    OK, dunno. Let’s just ignore that ugly term for now, until we can contact the authors and ask them to review their text. That could be a typo.

  142. 142
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman @ 137

    No the concept of CSI is proposed to describe a phenomenon that we observe in nature and draw attention to the fact that it cannot be be produced by natural ie algorithmic processes

    How do you know “CSI” (however you define it) can’t be produced by natural processes? There’s a whole industry based on the use of evolutionary algorithms to rapidly produce complex designs. Such feedback processes have produced amazingly complex structures including IC features that are way beyond human design capability. Asserting something is impossible and demonstrating something impossible are two very different things.

    Pi is a neat number. When I was in 6th grade I won a contest by memorizing Pi to 100 decimal places. 🙂

  143. 143
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Acartia_bogart

    Do agree that Pi is not computable? If so does this realization make you doubt the inferences drawn from it?

    For example do you think it’s an objective indicator of the area of a circle given it’s radius?

    peace

  144. 144
    Thorton says:

    ppolish @ 140

    Pi is found in many Scientifically Fundamental & Deep Equations

    So is e. So is Phi, the Golden Ratio.

    What is so surprising about that?

  145. 145
    Acartia_bogart says:

    “Pi is a neat number. When I was in 6th grade I won a contest by memorizing Pi to 100 decimal places. “

    When I was in 6th grade, Pi was a delicious treat. Unfortunately, many at UD have never gotten beyond this stage.

  146. 146
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton,

    I know that CSI can’t be produced by natural processes the same way I know that the digits of Pi don’t repeat. I can’t prove they don’t repeat but I know they don’t

    Do you?

    peace

  147. 147
    rich says:

    “Fractals are drenched in CSI. Drenched. Simple equation too.”

    Snowflakes and lightning are both fractal. I think they are both made by natural processes. Have you just killed the design inference (again).

  148. 148
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Fifthmonarchyman: “I know that CSI can’t be produced by natural processes the same way I know that the digits of Pi don’t repeat. I can’t prove they don’t repeat but I know they don’t”

    Since a simple google search shows that digits in Pi do repeat, does that mean that CSI can be produced by natural processes?

  149. 149
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101, #119, #136, #141 follow-up]

    AF: I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

    Here’s a report from Nature:

    Genome-wide identification and characterization of functional neuronal activity–dependent enhancers

    doi:10.1038/nn.3808

    Experience-dependent gene transcription is required for nervous system development and function.

    However, the DNA regulatory elements that control this program of gene expression are not well defined.

    These findings suggest that FOS functions at enhancers to control activity-dependent gene programs that are critical for nervous system function and provide a resource of functional cis-regulatory elements that may give insight into the genetic variants that contribute to brain development and disease.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-519674

  150. 150
    Querius says:

    Wow, the stuff we have to wade through!

    PIE “PI” is another non-computable number that when multiplied by the squared radius of a circle gives you it’s area.

    Gosh, where do the large number of decimal places for Pi (not “pie” and its, not “it’s”) come from? You know, like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950… ?

    Does someone draw and cut out a circle, weigh it to get the area and divide by the radius squared?

    Or maybe make a circle with a piece of string, and divide the measured circumference by the measured diameter?

    Sorry, I couldn’t help myself. LOL

    -Q

  151. 151
    ppolish says:

    Rich, snowflakes & lightning kill design? They PROVE it lol. Fractals are CSI extraordinaire. With equations even:)

  152. 152
    wd400 says:

    AB,

    The digits in pi don’t repeat, as in fall into a endlessly repeating pattern like, say, 9/11ths does. But the fact the digits of pi do not repeat is actually provable (though you need to know plenty of math to see this).

  153. 153
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    The referred reports show mechanisms that are not well understood yet. However, can someone describe how we got them, at least theoretically?

  154. 154
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153 follow-up]

    I’ll try to find another report next week.

    Have a good weekend,

  155. 155
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    “Or maybe make a circle with a piece of string, and divide the measured circumference by the measured diameter?”

    Measuring an individual circle in the physical world will never give you Pi. Because no circle in the physical world is perfect. Measurements will deviate from Pi eventually.

    Yet Pi exists objectively and is not computable. No amount of Typos or misspellings will change that

    peace

  156. 156
    ppolish says:

    Yes, the digits in Pi are interesting . Surely.

    Pi’s importance in deep equations is interesting too. More interesting maybe?

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri.....stant.html

  157. 157
    Acartia_bogart says:

    WD400: “The digits in pi don’t repeat, as in fall into a endlessly repeating pattern like, say, 9/11ths does.”

    But that us not what fifthmonarchyman stated. He/she said “I know that the digits of Pi don’t repeat”. Which they do. There are many cases where a digit repeats itself. I hate to parse words, because I think that it is intellectually dishonest, but it is a tactic used by IDists all of the time. Sauce for the goose and all that crap.

  158. 158
    rich says:

    ppolish: A purported entailment of CSI is that it can’t be made by natural forces.

  159. 159
    Dionisio says:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154 follow-up]

    Perhaps better you look at this thread yourself if you want to.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-502733

    There are over 550 posts with reports showing very complex mechanisms for which I have not seen a description of how we got them to begin with. Scientists are busy trying to figure out how they work. Are you aware of a detailed description of how these mechanisms evolved to their current status? Can you provide links? Thank you.

  160. 160
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    WD400

    The math you talk about is not an algorithm to calculate pi but an instead a mathematical inference based on fact that irrational numbers don’t repeat.

    This observation is not itself computable because it can’t be calculated algorithmically with out accepting axioms which are themselves not computable.

    round and round we go and you still haven’t calculated Pi

    peace

  161. 161
    keith s says:

    Learned Hand:

    If CSI works as advertised, why not demonstrate it? Wouldn’t that be the natural next step if its supporters were confident that it works?

    [Emphasis added]

    I think you just answered your own question.

  162. 162
    wd400 says:

    Right, but you said you can’t prove the digits of pi don’t repeat, when in fact it is possible to prove this.

    AB,

    Well, OK. But in math most people would take “the digits don’t repeat” as a colloquial way of saying a number is irrational, this seems to be what fifthmonarchyman is getting at (but what is wider point is I don’t know).

  163. 163
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    You guys can’t even agree on if the digits of Pi repeat. let alone calculate them.

    Yet you trust that it is an objective indicator and rely on the inferences drawn from it.

    You trust the math but you can’t be bothered to demonstrate it or even worse you simply do a Google search.

    Can you say Hypocrisy?

  164. 164

    There is no math that will prove the obvious to those who insist upon denying it.

  165. 165
    Learned Hand says:

    WJM,

    But if IDists could prove under controlled circumstances that their tools can actually detect design, it would be a powerful argument to sway the undecided, wouldn’t it?

    It’s relatively easy to ignore abstract mathematics, whether they’re right or wrong. If IDists could actually pick designed objects out of a lineup, though, it would be much harder for the mainstream to refute.

  166. 166
    rich says:

    FMM : PI, therefore ID? Or Tu Quoque because we got zilch.

  167. 167
    rich says:

    “My recepies are the best!”

    “Great, can I see / taste your cake?”

    “No !!!!”

  168. 168
    Thorton says:

    Intelligent Design detection seems to be like Uri Geller’s telekinesis power. It doesn’t work if anyone’s watching.

  169. 169
    StephenA says:

    But if IDists could prove under controlled circumstances that their tools can actually detect design, it would be a powerful argument to sway the undecided, wouldn’t it?

    And we are perfectly willing to do this, but you have to keep in mind that the explanatory filter frequently gives false negatives (that is, it will often mischaracterize things as not being designed when they in fact are designed). Thus we can never be sure if a thing is in fact undesigned. The Explanatory Filter never produces false positives though, so if we use it to determine that something is designed, we can be sure that it is in fact designed.

    (If you are aware of the Explanatory Filter giving a false positive, please, please tell us about it. It would be exactly the kind of evidence we have been asking for for decades now.)

  170. 170
    rich says:

    Examples are the key, StephenA. Don’t be looking to us to provide them….

  171. 171
    Querius says:

    We apparently still have some mysteries here . . .

    Allegedly, the value of Pi cannot be computed, but then there are all these representations of Pi with lots of digits–trillions of digits! Where did all these digits come from??? A ten-sided die?

    C’mon fifth. Tell us! LOL

    And A_B/Spearshake/Tintinnid/etc. who can’t correctly compute a probability with the binomial theorum, tell us about an important mathematical property of a number that has a repeating pattern of digits, a property that when it was found to be missing in some cases, was a discovery so terrible to the Pythagoreans, that they swore themselves to SECRECY, and possibly committed murder to protect it! :O

    -Q

  172. 172
    Querius says:

    And now we’re fortunate to have Thorton’s observation

    Intelligent Design detection seems to be like Uri Geller’s telekinesis power. It doesn’t work if anyone’s watching.

    You mean like the Quantum Zeno effect?

    -Q

  173. 173
    Querius says:

    And another question . . . does the origin of fractals in nature determine the mathematics of fractals, or does some aspect of mathematics drive the fractals in nature?

    Does mathematics originate from nature? Can mathematics exist outside the universe? How come?

    -Q

  174. 174
    Querius says:

    NEWS FLASH!

    After billions of years, scientists have now determined that 2 + 2 = 4.00000000018, demonstrating how 4 must be evolving into 5 in tiny increments as predicted in the Origin of the Numbers!

    -Q

  175. 175
    Thorton says:

    StephenA @ 169

    If you are aware of the Explanatory Filter giving a false positive, please, please tell us about it. It would be exactly the kind of evidence we have been asking for for decades now.

    Biological life.

  176. 176
    Mapou says:

    Thorton:

    Intelligent Design detection seems to be like Uri Geller’s telekinesis power. It doesn’t work if anyone’s watching.

    And yet we detect design all the time, day in and day out. We’re so good at it, we don’t even think of it as design detection. The brain is extremely good at knowing what’s designed and what’s not, just by looking at it.

    It’s all very simple, IMO. If something is not random (unpredictable) it was either designed or it was the consequence of design. Why? Because design is the opposite of randomness. Thus the whole universe was designed.

    I suggest you look into the physics community for telekinesis power and similar magic. I mean, we have all heard about the cat that is both dead and alive when nobody is looking, right? LOL.

  177. 177
    Andre says:

    I have an observation…..

    The question was asked to our Materialist/Darwinist/sceptical friends to drop the bomb that will blow design out of the minds of people forever.

    What exactly did we get? A nice deflection and instead of speaking about natural processes doing the job we are arguing about the nuances of CSI. This conversation is hopeless if we are arguing about something that has nothing to do with the evidence we asked for. So the Materialists/Darwinist/Sceptics are actually 1 up with a nice slight of hand trick……

    So to answer the materialists/Darwinists/sceptics on CSI and how it fits into scientific observation lets look at Orgel’s full statements, since they are one up let us give them the benefit of the doubt.

    In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity

    So can we all agree on what Leslie Orgel speaks of here? Is this observation unclear to anyone? Can anyone actually dispute CSI given that we observe it empirically?

    You can go chew on that, but to deny it means you’re not in anyway a free thinker or open-minded, it means you are in fact a closed minded obtuse ignoramus…… (Prove me wrong)

    Now to the bomb that we are asking for…….

    Can anyone of you guys please explain to me how PCD evolved? Can anyone give me a model how an unguided process created a mechanism, that prevents unguided process from altering other mechanisms within the cells?

    A clear, concise explanation with observation will satisfy my request.

  178. 178
    rich says:

    Nuances = existence, apparently.

  179. 179
    Learned Hand says:

    StephenA: “If you are aware of the Explanatory Filter giving a false positive, please, please tell us about it.”

    I’m not aware of the Explanatory Filter ever being used in a controlled test, for example where an arbiter knows whether the subject was designed but the person applying the filter does not.

    Every use of the EF I’ve ever seen either focuses on a subject whose history the tester already knows (“Of course Mount Rushmore was designed!”) or a subject whose history isn’t externally determinable to the mutual satisfaction of the parties (life, as per the comments above).

  180. 180
    Andre says:

    Rich

    Any idea what nuance actually means or are we going to fall into a trap to debate its meaning?

    Please just take a stab at my request give it your best effort please.

  181. 181
    Learned Hand says:

    I’d add that if the EF actually failed to produce false positives in a controlled testing environment, I’d be very impressed. And shocked. Even if the EF worked, it’s still being applied by fallible human beings; surely it’s going to produce false positives if only because it’s a fuzzy metric applied by imperfect testers.

  182. 182
    StephenA says:

    Examples are the key, StephenA. Don’t be looking to us to provide them….

    Examples of what? IDists using the Explanatory filter to determine things are designed? (we can never conclusively show that they are not desgined after all) If you haven’t seen any, then you simply haven’t been paying attention.

    But, for the sake of the lurkers, here’s a few:
    The Flagellum
    ATP
    The universal constants

  183. 183
    rich says:

    Andre, for me nuance suggests some ‘fuzziness around the edges’ of an issue. I wouldn’t describe the ‘Many scientist doubt the concept has meaning in a actionable sense’ to be “nuance”.

    Then we have:

    “As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.” – Dembski

    Of course NDE has gaps. That’s partly due to it having substance. ID doesn’t even have that.

  184. 184
    Thorton says:

    Mapou @ 176

    And yet we detect design all the time, day in and day out. We’re so good at it, we don’t even think of it as design detection.

    We detect human (or animal) design by recognizing objects or a set of traits we’ve seen before and know 100% were designed.

    The brain is extremely good at knowing what’s designed and what’s not, just by looking at it.

    No, the brain is good at pattern matching new things to things it has encountered before. As a result the brain is also very susceptible to false positives – seeing design where none exists due to superficial similarities. That’s why people see faces in clouds and the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. It’s also why no IDer will take Learned Hand’s challenge. IDers are great at seeing design in objects someone already told them were designed. On complete unknowns they’re clueless.

  185. 185
    Andre says:

    Rich

    Your post makes no sense, all I’m asking you is how did PCD evolve?

  186. 186
    Thorton says:

    StephenA

    But, for the sake of the lurkers, here’s a few:
    The Flagellum
    ATP

    There’s two false positives right off the bat. So much for “never has false positives”.

  187. 187
    Andre says:

    Thorton

    Your assertion;

    “IDers are great at seeing design in objects someone already told them were designed. On complete unknowns they’re clueless.”

    Is false, this means forensics, SETI, and archaeology is useless scientific enterprises.

  188. 188
    Andre says:

    Thorton

    Do you have any model how Flagellum and ATP could have evolved in a stepwise manor, with NS, RM and drift? Really you have a model those shows how these systems built themselves?

  189. 189
    rich says:

    Is that all, Andre? If I can explain in meticulous detail how something happened millions of years ago, you’ll give up ID?

    Sounds fair.

    Whilst ID gets to be a “non mechanistic theory”, which “infers to the best explanation”

    Needle and thread for my sides, please.

  190. 190
    Andre says:

    Before I’m be ridiculed for auto correct…

    *manor = manner

    apologies

  191. 191
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I’m actually asking you for an inference to the best explanation using unguided processes…..

  192. 192
    rich says:

    Andre – here are some thoughts from wikipedia on Flagella evolution:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

    Can I get the corresponding ID narrative so I can infer to the best explanation, please. When did the designer do it? How? with what? what did they have for lunch, etc.

  193. 193
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I don’t claim that unguided processes millions of years ago built biological systems, you are, now if you have an idea in your mind that this is true you will have to at least prove it is possible…..

    Can you?

  194. 194
    rich says:

    Well, we have strong evidence that these systems existed back then, which pretty much wins it for us at the very start.

  195. 195
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    this means forensics, SETI, and archaeology is useless scientific enterprises.

    Forensics, SETI, and archaeology aren’t looking at complete unknowns. Forensics and archaeology are looking for patterns or objects known to be produced by humans. Even SETI is looking for signals similar to what humans produce on the idea there are only a finite number of ways to modulate electromagnetic energy.

    When IDers look at biological life they have nothing complex to compare it to except human produced complex things. Then they make a *superficial* match, get a false positive and declare “Design!!”.

  196. 196
    Andre says:

    Rich

    #192 is just an attempt to another low blow, please I’m asking how did PCD evolve?

    How does an unguided process build a mechanism that prevents unguided processes from altering other mechanisms within a cell?

    Do you understand the implication of this or does it fly over your head? Perhaps the idea repulses you because if you had to give it some thought you would not like the possible answer?

  197. 197
    rich says:

    How was PCD designed?

    Who did it?

    If you think this is a legitimate line of questioning, show me how.

    you might not be impressed that we don’t have a mutation by mutation narrative, but I can see your cards. Or rather I can’t see them, because you don’t have any.

  198. 198
    Thorton says:

    Andre, science doesn’t know every detail of every step for things that happened over a billion years ago. We have plausible pathways with some supporting evidence and we have proven mechanisms capable of navigating such pathways.

    We also have ZERO evidence that any sort of external guiding Intelligence was involved anywhere along the way. “Science can’t explain everything now” does NOT mean “ID wins by default”. Science got rid of the “God of the gaps” reasoning three hundred years ago. When will IDers get the message?

  199. 199
    rich says:

    A quick google gives us:

    http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/El.....21988.html

    “Programmed cell death (PCD) is an evolutionary conserved, regulated process of cell suicide crucial in the development and homeostasis of multicellular animals and plants.

    Various forms of PCD have also been discovered in unicellular organisms, including bacteria, favouring the survival in adverse environments of a part of the colony at the expense of the premature dismissal of another.

    Because PCD appears as an ‘altruistic’ cell response, the evolutionary origin of PCD has been equated with that of ‘altruistic’ cell behaviour.

    The ‘original sin’ hypothesis postulates that the origin of PCD is as ancient as the origin of the first cell, resulting from an unavoidable capacity of most molecular effectors of cell survival (metabolism, differentiation and cell cycle) to induce stochastic self?destruction, when their activity is not regulated by other cell survival effectors acting as partial antagonists.

    The ‘original sin’ hypothesis predicts that there are no specific ‘death genes’; rather, the ancestral capacity of most effectors of cell survival to also induce cell suicide allowed their continuous selection during evolution for both their ‘pro?life’ and ‘pro?death’ activities.

    Some of the pleiotropic ‘pro?life’ and ‘pro?death’ effectors diversified and propagated in bacteria as toxin/antidote ‘addiction modules’, achieving a form of enforced symbiosis, because their dismissal results in the self?destruction of the cell in which they reside.

    Host/parasite conflicts, lateral gene transfers and enforced symbioses – between bacteria and their ‘addiction modules’ of plasmid origin, and later between eukaryote cells and their mitochondria endosymbionts of bacterial origin – played a crucial role in the subsequent diversification and propagation of PCD.

    The seminal studies of the genetic control of PCD in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans implied that executioners and repressors of PCD had no other possible effect than execution or repression of cell death; however, a series of recent findings indicates that executioners and repressors of PCD exert other previously undetected vital effects in both multicellular and unicellular organisms.”

    Can I get this level about the design and designer, please?

    Thanks!

  200. 200
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I’m not asking how the designer did it, please stop your deflections. I’m asking how did unguided processes do it? You hold that it was done by unguided processes right? Here is a clue in the opening statement…..

    ““Programmed cell death (PCD) is an evolutionary conserved, regulated process of cell suicide crucial in the development and homeostasis of multicellular animals and plants.”

    Would you like me to translate into plain English?

    PCD is an evolutionary protection, regulated process of cell suicide crucial in the development and maintenance of stability of multicellular animals and plants……

    Now you don’t have to be very smart to ask the following questions?

    How is it possible that some unintelligent process that is totally unguided and purely random get it right to know when a system is at it’s most supposed optimal level and then to start the building process of a mechanism to safe guard that optimal system from any other possible unguided processes that may try to alter that system.

    Evolution sure works in mysterious ways!

    Do you understand that PCD is an evolution defeater? It renders everything you or anyone else can possible conjure up on how random mutations, natural selection and drift works because PCD kills those unguided processes dead in their tracks!

  201. 201
    Andre says:

    Thorton

    “We have plausible pathways”

    Do you have any experimental evidence of these plausible pathways? I’m interested……

  202. 202
    Andre says:

    Thorton

    “proven mechanisms capable of navigating such pathways”

    Proven? Now I’m really interested! Seduce me with proof!

    Thorton have you ever given it the thought that maybe natural process cannot explain the data, or are you an eternal optimist that maybe one day it might? Biological systems are not the product of natural processes and to keep bashing that it is makes you an intellectual fraud, time to man up because truthfully you have no clue how such a system could possibly come about by ANY type of natural process, I’ll stick my neck out not even 1!

    So to come and plead that we should give chance a chance with a bit of time thrown in does not in anyway strengthen your case, matter od fact it just exposes your intellectual inability to think these things through……

  203. 203
    rich says:

    And here Andre is going for the ‘constant attack on evolution’ gambit.

    No level of detail will be enough- but don’t ask him about ID, because substance precedes detail, and ID doesn’t have that.

    Evolutionary narrative doesn’t have to be perfect, Andre, just better than what you can (or can’t, apparently) muster.

  204. 204
    Andre says:

    Rich

    We are not talking about my position we are talking about yours, I’m sure you can defend your position with verifiable evidence? No? Then are you doing so on a hunch or a belief?

    Please for the last time How did an unguided process create a process to stop unguided processes from happening?

    If you are unable to the comprehend the problem then you need to start questioning your beliefs!

  205. 205
    rich says:

    And Andre’s still going for the ‘constant attack on evolution’ gambit. Pony needs new tricks!

    I’m talking about them both, comparatively.

    You are unwilling to do this.

    We both know why.

  206. 206
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I’m not attacking it I’m asking explain it………

  207. 207
    Andre says:

    I can explain PCD from an engineering point of view can you do so from a non-engineering point of view, but let me rather keep quiet I know you’re trying to deflect from actually defending your position…..

  208. 208
    ppolish says:

    Rich says
    “ppolish: A purported entailment of CSI is that it can’t be made by natural forces.”

    I did not suggest Pi or the Mandelbrot Set were made by natural forces. Nature did not create fractals. Guided by fractals sometimes, most certainly.

  209. 209
    Andre says:

    Rich and Thorton

    So when do you think PCD went live? 2.3 billion years ago? 500 million years ago? 1965? When did it become conserved?

    If it was 2.3 billion years ago then we can say with absolute certainty that the end product we see today could not have come about by RM, NS or drift…..

    If it was 500 million years ago how did biological systems control stability?

    If it was in 1965 how come are all the same? Surely if this is a new and novel concept out there some guy had wings? Fish with big brains? No?

  210. 210
    Andre says:

    Oh I forgot evolution works in very mysterious ways and I’m to stupid to understand it but you do, you know the secret but it is just so mind bogglingly complex that you are unable to explain it to my little mind….. I get you……

  211. 211
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton at #198:

    I has been some time since I heard such a naive and funny restatement of the infamous “God of the gap” argument against ID. My compliments.

  212. 212
    Andre says:

    Rich & Thornton

    I call your bluff….. Evidence please…. if you don’t know what happened a billion years ago how do you know now unless of course your sucking the information from your thumbs………

  213. 213
    Jagesh Nadu says:

    Hello Barry, I’m on the fence in regard to ID and I want to point out something that I ask you to seriously consider. I’m very turned off by comments from ID advocates that are belligerent and rude. Commenters like Joe, for example, greatly hurt your cause, and you and others are also sometimes guilty of belligerence, rudeness, and name calling, and it’s not just the comments posted here that make me feel that I should stop paying any attention to ID and this blog.

    Some of the ID advocates here also comment at other blogs or have blogs of their own, and what they say reflects on the reputation of ID, you, and this blog. For instance, have you ever looked at Joe’s blog and what he says when he comments at other blogs? Do you believe that he is helping your cause? Do you believe that your association with him is helping ID and Uncommon Descent? And while Joe may be the most rude and foul-mouthed ID advocate, others, including you at times, put a very rude face on ID. I’m sure that I’m not the only one who feels this way.

    Please seriously consider what I have said. Thanks.

  214. 214
    Andre says:

    Rich and Thornton….

    The paper says;

    Because PCD appears as an ‘altruistic’ cell response, the evolutionary origin of PCD has been equated with that of ‘altruistic’ cell behaviour.

    Do any of you know what altruistic means?

    There goes the selfish gene theory, demolished by PCD. There goes the unguided theory…. demolished by PCD, There goes random mutation, demolished by PCD, there goes drift demolished by PCD, there goes natural selection demolished by PCD…… There goes macro evolution demolished by PCD….. what have you got left?

    Lets hear it maties!

  215. 215
    Andre says:

    Rich and Thornton

    I’ve found you guys some reading material on control systems, there is also a child version but this one should do;

    http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C.....troduction

    Please take some of your precious time in defending Darwinism and spend some time looking at some engineering stuff get back to me when you are comfortable in your knowledge of where these type of systems come from and how they work.

    Regards

    Andre

  216. 216
    Joe says:

    rich continues to show his ignorance:

    And Andre’s still going for the ‘constant attack on evolution’ gambit.

    As I have been telling you for years that is because the design inference mandates we sweep clear necessity and chance before we can even consider the design inference. And if you could grow a pair and actually support your position you wouldn’t care about any attacks. But you are an ignorant coward so attacking your position with facts and evidence makes you cry.

  217. 217
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Evolutionary narrative doesn’t have to be perfect, Andre, just better than what you can (or can’t, apparently) muster.

    LoL! Science is NOT about producing narratives. Are you really that ignorant?

  218. 218
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    How do you know “CSI” (however you define it) can’t be produced by natural processes?

    Because there isn’t any evidence for it. No one knows how to model such a thing.

    There’s a whole industry based on the use of evolutionary algorithms to rapidly produce complex designs.

    That is evolution by intelligent design and has nothing to do with blind and undirected processes. Your ignorance is showing, again.

  219. 219
    gpuccio says:

    Andre, Joe:

    Rich does not seem interested in any serious discussion.

    Thorton recycles trivial stereotypes.

    How boring.

    OK, if that is the contribution of the “readmitted” interlocutors, we can really be happy!

    Where are the serious ones?

    I would really appreciate, not necessarily a bomb, but just some debatable argument. Maybe I ask too much. 🙂

  220. 220
    Joe says:

    gpuccio- None of them are interested in a serious discussion. They are all here to obfuscate and badger us with their childish ignorance.

    But yes, methinks that was Barry’s reason, ie to show that our opponents have absolutely nothing. It’s working.

    However I am interested in the science of producing narratives and how narratives are evidence for the world view.

  221. 221
    Joe says:

    rich:

    If I can explain in meticulous detail how something happened millions of years ago, you’ll give up ID?

    I would give up on ID if you had the evidence that blind and undirected processes could produce flagella, ATP synthase, and eukaryotes from prokaryotes.

    Yet you have nothing and that is why you badger IDists.

  222. 222
    Joe says:

    Notice how rich’s article on PCD (199) has NOTHING to do with blind and undirected processes. It’s as if evos are proud to be cowardly equivocators.

    As far as rich and the authors know, PCD was intelligently designed.

  223. 223
    Andre says:

    Gpuccio & Joe

    For the sake of fairness, transparency and genuine interest….Put on your materialist hat and take a stab on how unguided processes created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening

    Anything?

  224. 224
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Just to recap

    The Tee-shirt equation is

    CSI=NCF

    Complex Specified Information is not Computable

    Therefore In order to infer that an phenomena was not produced algorithmically all we need to observe is that it has CSI.

    We don’t need to know it’s origin in detail.

    In fact to ask for a detailed step by step account of a phenomenon’s origin is the same thing as asking for the algorithm that produced it.

    The one thing we know for sure is that designed things are not produced by algorithms.

    On the other hand it is the Darwinist who claims that the Bacterial Flagellum was produced naturely by an algorithm so the burden of proof is on them to describe said algorithm.

    Peace

  225. 225
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    IDers are not “constantly attacking Evolution”

    We are simply saying that Evolution like all algorithms is incapable of producing non-computable functions.

    We are only asking that if you make the claim that X was produced by an algorithm “ie evolution” you demonstrate that said algorithm is capable of producing it.

    To avoid such demonstration is to concede the IDers argument.

    peace

  226. 226
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @fifthmonarchyman:

    We are simply saying that Evolution like all algorithms is incapable of producing non-computable functions.

    I don’t think people exist who say otherwise. After all “No algorithm can exist to solve the problem” is the definition of “non-computable problem”

  227. 227
    Joe says:

    Andre:

    Put on your materialist hat and take a stab on how unguided processes created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening.

    Huh? 🙂

    D’oh

  228. 228
    kairosfocus says:

    5th: J Bartlett on oracle machines here may be interesting reading. KF

  229. 229

    Learned Hand said:

    But if IDists could prove under controlled circumstances that their tools can actually detect design, it would be a powerful argument to sway the undecided, wouldn’t it?

    No, I don’t think any mathematical formula is going to sway the undecided one bit. I also don’t think it should. If one can look at the precise, organized, complex functional nanotechnology present inside every cell and walk away “undecided” about whether or not haphazard collections of random, interacting molecules could pull that off given any amount of time and resources, a mathematical proof isn’t going to help them make a decision – unless, perhaps, they happen to be a combination of mathematician, chemist, systems programmer and engineer.

    Those who believe the integrated, complex, precisely functional 3D engineering and corresponding advanced multi-layer digital code blueprint and control software we find in organic cells could have occurred by chance (and thus remain “undecided” about whether design was necessary) are hopelessly deluded or foolish,

    Mathematical proofs are not going to penetrate that kind of delusion or foolishness.

  230. 230
    Thorton says:

    @ Andre – if all you can do is make ridiculous and unreasonable demands from science as your “evidence” for ID there’s nothing to discuss. One more reason why science doesn’t take ID seriously.

    @ Joe. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule screaming obscenities, making physical threats, and getting banned for posting porn on other sites. Sorry but at this time there’s no need for your childish posturing and moronic one-liners. Wipe the powdered sugar off your chins and go have another donut. Tell you what – next time I meet someone who needs a toaster repaired I’ll send him your way.

  231. 231
    kairosfocus says:

    LH, FSCO/I is an extension of the work of Orgel and Wicken in the ’70’s. It is effectively the same thing as what we see in common computer or multimedia file sizes: functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. With trillions of known cases, it reliably indicates design. It can be quantified e.g. Chi_500 = I*S – 500, functionally specific bits beyond the solar system needle in haystack threshold. It has been on the table since the 1970’s. The response of committed evolutionary materialist zealots and fellow travellers is to try to obfuscate or twist it into pretzels and pretend it is not valid, as we can fairly easily see. Evidence and logic and inductive reasoning are not the real problem, on much smaller grounds any number of scientific laws are routinely accepted. The problem is selective hyperskepticism and linked ideological lock in of a materialist origins narrative impervious to evidence. It can only be exposed to the point here it can no longer be got away with, and those who undertake such a task can count on being viciously attacked every inch of the way by inherently amoral ideologues with worldviews that open the door to nihilism. Personalities, nastiness, bully-boyism, expulsion if the nihilists have power, outing tactics, cyberstalking, stalking uninvolved family including minor children and more. Some of the more unhinged and obsessive fanatics we describe as using such tactics give evidence of anger management problems, drink and or drugs, being gun nuts, possible post traumatic stress disorders and more. KF

  232. 232
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ Timmy the cry-baby Horton. You don’t know anything about science and you are too much of a coward to actually try to support evolutionism.

    You are a fine example of everything that is wrong in the world. Congratulations, loser. Now go play in traffic.

  233. 233
    kairosfocus says:

    TH: I simply point out that a convincing empirical demonstration of FSCO/I arising by blind chance and mechanical necessity would show that it is not a reliable sign of design. The latest gambit along those lines, demanding a comparison of a rough and a brilliant cut diamond, from you, was answered just yesterday. As usual and as the needle in haystack analysis shows, FSCO/I comes up trumps. KF

  234. 234
    Joe says:

    thorton can be ignored as it has nothing at all to offer. It cannot further the dialog. It can’t even understand what we say.

  235. 235
    kairosfocus says:

    Joe: Please turn down the dial on tone. You have substance, that should be enough to answer, personalities are not needed. Please — don’t be like the man here who some months back “christened” the new cemetery many years before his proper time, because of bad choices. KF

  236. 236
    Learned Hand says:

    WJM: “No, I don’t think any mathematical formula is going to sway the undecided one bit.”

    I think solid math would be persuasive to many people, but in general I agree that it takes more than just formulas. That’s my point! Empirical results aren’t impossible to ignore, but they’re much, much, much harder more insistent.

    The rest of your comment emphasizes the “gut check” nature of ID. I agree with that, too; I think if you scratch the surface of most ID rhetoric you come quickly to the underlying assumption that life must be designed because it feels like it was designed. That’s one reason why ID’s formulas and rhetoric aren’t very persuasive. No one in the ID movement seems to take them seriously as a toolkit for actually detecting design in the real world. It seems like they’re only a justiication for supporting the preexisting design inference when it comes to life (which I think is usually a religious belief), and can’t be used to produce real-world results outside that special case.

  237. 237
    Vishnu says:

    Thorton: Even SETI is looking for signals similar to what humans produce on the idea there are only a finite number of ways to modulate electromagnetic energy. When IDers look at biological life they have nothing complex to compare it to except human produced complex things. Then they make a *superficial* match, get a false positive and declare “Design!!”.

    More specifically, one thing SETI looks for is “coded information.” From their site:

    How do you know if you’ve detected an intelligent, extraterrestrial signal?

    The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e. how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced. Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal.

    http://www.seti.org/faq

    So why are they looking for coded information on a signal? Because humans (intelligent agents) are the only known source of coded information. The thing is, we have an extremely sophisticated system of coded information consisting of the DNA/ribosome replicators in each cell in your body.

    Why should coded information from space be considered a strong indicator of intelligence and not the DNA/ribosome replicator?

  238. 238
    Learned Hand says:

    KF,

    “FSCO/I is an extension of the work of Orgel and Wicken in the ’70?s. It is effectively the same thing as what we see in common computer or multimedia file sizes: functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information.”

    That’s easy to say. But what would support that position is actually calculating FSCO/I for algorithms or codes. Can you do that? And in particular, as I’ve suggested, it would be very powerful evidence for ID if you could use FSCO/I to actually determine whether test subjects were designed or not. I think that’s a trivial observation, which makes it difficult to understand IDists’ reluctance to apply the tools they say are so powerful and reliable. At least, from their own perspective; obviously my opinion is that IDists understand that they cannot actually detect design without knowing in advance whether the subject was designed.

    “It has been on the table since the 1970?s.”

    This is a reference to Orgel also, isn’t it? My understanding was that he used “complex” in a very different way from the ID meaning of the term. Is that not right? If I propose a new kinetic energy equation, f=ma, where “f” stands for “fastness,” then I can hardly claim my concept has been on the table since Newton. But I haven’t actually read Orgel’s paper, so maybe I’m wrong about his definition of complexity.

    “The response of committed evolutionary materialist zealots and fellow travellers is to try to obfuscate or twist it into pretzels and pretend it is not valid, as we can fairly easily see.”

    IDists could totally defeat this perceived obfuscation by demonstrating empirically that they can distinguish between designed and undesigned subjects in controlled tests. It would be incredibly hard to say that ID has no explanatory power if IDists could reliably detect design with no false positives. And yet, no IDists seem to even be contemplating such tests. Why not?

  239. 239
    Barry Arrington says:

    Hand:

    My understanding was that he used “complex” in a very different way from the ID meaning of the term. Is that not right?

    Yes, that is not right. Here is Orgel (again; see above):

    In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity

    Any ID proponent could have written that paragraph. He uses the terms complex and specified in exactly the sense Dembski uses the terms.

  240. 240
    rich says:

    How do IDists explain the spectacular lack of examples? It is not helping them.

  241. 241
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich, there are literally trillions of examples, starting with the posts in this thread, the wider Internet, libraries and a world of technology, where we directly know that FSCO/I exists and is a directly known result of design. We also have the needle in haystack analysis which directly beings out why that should be so. But, in your zero concessions, selective hyperskeptical policy you refuse to acknowledge that such exists. Telling, and underscoring the point. KF

  242. 242
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    The only person that is making unreasonable demand from science is you. You are the one that is expecting natural unguided processes to build complex designs. Sadly science does not support you position, only your imagination does.

  243. 243
    AnimatedDust says:

    Joe. What KF said. You have a ton of substance. Of late, you’ve degenerated into a mirror version of sneering atheists/Darwinists you’d find at Dawkins’ or pandas thumb. I know you’re frustrated. It’s hard not to be that way. But let’s do better and leave that domain to them.

  244. 244
    Learned Hand says:

    I had read that while Orgel uses “complex” in a fairly conventional way, Dembski is essentially using it to mean “improbable” or “unlikely.” Thus, Orgel would not think a perfect steel tetrahedron on the moon had CSI, while Dembski would. Not so? Pardon me for not finding a source, I’m on an airplane waiting to take off.

  245. 245
    Andre says:

    Rich…

    Lack of examples? Epic miss……..

    Hahahaha

  246. 246
    rich says:

    Andre, so here’s where you show how right you are by providing some robust CSI calculations from all those examples you have for your epic win..

    Thanks in advance!

  247. 247

    I think solid math would be persuasive to many people, but in general I agree that it takes more than just formulas.

    It shouldn’t be persuasive to anyone who doesn’t really understand the mathematical and probability concepts employed, which I think would make the “solid math” largely out of the reach of most people.

    That’s my point! Empirical results aren’t impossible to ignore, but they’re much, much, much harder more insistent.

    No, they’re not. They’re just as easy as anything else to ignore/deny. We still have people here insisting that no ID papers have been published, and that no IDists are pursuing real science. Even though it’s been empirically demonstrated otherwise, we still have people insisting that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo and that CSI is nothing more than a bogus, mythic concept created by IDists.

    I think if you scratch the surface of most ID rhetoric you come quickly to the underlying assumption that life must be designed because it feels like it was designed.

    And here we have demonstrated the very nature of what I mean by the capacity to deny/ignore. ID has no such assumption or claim.

    No one in the ID movement seems to take them seriously as a toolkit for actually detecting design in the real world.

    How is anyone supposed to penetrate this kind of denialism? What about the scores of peer-reviewed papers published that employ that toolkit or versions of it?
    http://sententias.org/2012/02/15/id-papers/

    It seems like they’re only a justiication for supporting the preexisting design inference when it comes to life (which I think is usually a religious belief), and can’t be used to produce real-world results outside that special case.

    There’s no argument I have that will penetrate your obvious pre-existing bias, prejudice and denialism.

    When Darwinists insist there is no significant difference between a sandcastle and a pile of sand, there is no hope for rational debate. If people are “undecided” about whether or not high-precision, inter-dependent, complex 3D machinery and corresponding multi-layer digital blueprint, assembly and control code can come about via chance, no math or argument or empirical evidence matters in the face of such delusion/foolishness.

  248. 248
    rich says:

    KF, Yawn, but points at least for brevity.

    You as always are arguing for spontaneous generation, Hoyle’s tornado in a junkyard. No-one thinks that life came about like that, apart from creationists.

    A system that creates variability along with a method to select for improvements will accumulate information over time. CSI math needs to deal with this is the biological domain, and you also need to show it works with examples where you don’t know the design status before hand in other domains.

    These challenges have been raised here many times before, and not taken up. We, those skeptical of ID, will work with you if you want on these challenges so you can test the efficacy of CSI and calibrate your design methods.

    I’ve proposed on TSZ Benford’s Law and Compressed Sensing as potential fruitfull enhancements:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=5085

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1691

    Also Shallit and Elsberry have proffered Specified Anti Information.

    All you do, if we’re being honest, is acknowledge things we already know are designed, and then say “Full of FSCIO!”

  249. 249
  250. 250
    kairosfocus says:

    LH, it’s not true that there is just a naked formula out there. I suggest you have a look here, just from recent weeks here at UD, to see where the Chi_500 result comes from (in context of an exchange some 3 1/2 years back, where WmAD’s 2005 metric was log reduced and turned into a working metric, based on the standard theory of info metrics), and why it makes sense. Indeed, we can start with the fact that info is well known to be measurable through chains of Y/N q’s to specify a state from a set of possibilities and/or though a log analysis; and that in many cases we can show configs to be to be functionally specific — a good index is, vulnerability to noise disturbance; a brilliant cut diamond that shows hearts and arrows is very exacting, but a raw diamond in the form of a rough warped octahedron with missing bits is not. Similarly, I once asked someone who programs robot workcells on automotive assembly lines whether he would be willing to inject a significant amount of random noise into the control pgms or wiring — no way, for obvious reasons. English text is a bit more tolerant than that, as you will see form the abbreviations etc in this comment. (And I leave the typo form for from.) Do the experiment of setting up a blank Word 97 DOC file. Open up with an inspection program and change a character or two at random. Save, close, try to re-open, it will all but certainly report corrupt, never mind the seeming empty repetition in the file. So, I*S is a reasonable metric model of functionally specific bits. A needle in haystack calc will readily show why 500 bits worth of config space, 3.27*10^150 possibilities, swamps the capacity of the 10^57 atoms of our cosmos each inspecting a 500 coin tray repeatedly flipped, once every 10^-14 s [a fast chem rxn rate] such that it is maximally implausible for blind chance e and necessity samples to find deeply isolated islands of function. Which, is what you get from a large number of well matched components that must be properly arranged to give function. A rough calc is that the sample size stands as one straw to a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy. Superpose on our neighbourhood and try a one straw sized sample, with all but absolute certainty, for sure with practical certainty, you will get straw. Stars may be 1/2 mn miles across and may be there in thousands, but the distance on avg between them is several light years. The direct application is OOL, where it is chemistry and thermodynamics that controls what happen in Darwin’s pond or the like. You need to account, on vera causa, for a gated, encapsulated, metabolising, C Chemistry Aqueous medium cell that has a maetabolic function based on DNA code driven proteins by the hundreds, and exhibits a code based von Neumann kinematic self replicator. Such is chock full of FSCO/I and the only empirically known, needle in haystack credible source is design. And no, RNA world or molecular replicator worlds are speculative scenarios not empirically warranted explanations. THE CREDIBLE GENOME SIZE FOR SUCH IS 100 – 1,000 K BASES, AND FOR MAJOR BODY PLANS BEYOND, WE ARE LOOKING AT 10 – 100+ MN BASES EACH, DOZENS OF TIMES OVER HERE ON EARTH. Where just the existence of deeply isolated protein fold domains in amino acid chain space, thousands of them, of which thousands seem to have been there since OOL more or less, and we see the FSCO/I challenge speaking with a force that the objectors above are loathe to acknowledge. Okay, I responded because you seem to be genuinely seeking, but I don’t have more time just now, I have taken up far too much time already today. KF

  251. 251
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich, Mocking Hoyle simply doges the force of the point. Until you show that you have a credible, empirically warranted case of FSCO/I produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity all you have is ideological imposition and speculation in the teeth of trillions of cases in point. And, just int eh past day, one of the objector posts here was turned into a value of FSCO/I and shown to confirm the accuracy of the verdicts rendered by the Chi metric. You know how to do the calc, and you know that ASCII text is 7 bits per character, the 8th being parity check. Your comment no 248 to me is 1071 characters, at 7 bits each, wel past the 500 bit threshold. You kjust added tothe trillions in point where on cases known separately FSCO/I is reliable as an index of design once Chi_500 goes positive. You know or should know that inductive reasoning includes that if a given index s is reliable as a sign of a causal process D, then we are epistemically warranted to infer on best explanation from s to D, as best current explanation. Your deeper quarrel is with inductive reasoning, i.e. you are dismissing science once it cuts across your ideology, i.e. we see here a clear case of selective hyperskepticism. Game over. KF

  252. 252
    rich says:

    “Your comment no 248 to me is 1071 characters, at 7 bits each, wel past the 500 bit threshold.”

    very good – now you need to show how many comments could have performed the same function across multiple langues,uses of syntax, abbreviations, different audiences, etc.

    And Writing messages is (mainly) spontaneous generation, which is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE LIFE.

    But….but…but…BIG NUMBERS!

    *yawn*

  253. 253
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N Onlookers kindly go here, a response to one Richard T Hughes at TSZ (a more respectable front for some seriously abusive sites) attempting to deride and dismiss the Chi_500 metric and FSCO/I:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-in-rooms/

    Gotta go now. KF

  254. 254
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s trying to use fallacious statistical math to try prove that God does not exist is a bit like a fish trying to prove that water does not exist

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    i.e. keith s, and other atheists, must sit in God’s lap in order to be able to slap him,,

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All (Stephen) Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules.
    Hawking needs God in order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter – picture
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10344804_736790473055959_5027794313726938258_n.png?oh=32dcc64a81815fd8fbf5884ea44490ed&oe=548E8745&__gda__=1418537725_911886dd89430d275c0e393a46afdb55

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson, PhD – video
    https://vimeo.com/75897668

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel

  255. 255
    Upright BiPed says:

    A system that creates variability along with a method to select for improvements will accumulate information over time.

    I’ll bite.

    How?

    Explain the rise of a system with these characteristics. How did the physical requirements of such a system come into being?

    Or, do you merely take it for granted without considering the physical requirements involved?

  256. 256
    rich says:

    Bye KF:

    Just to summarize:

    *You model spontaneous generation (of text)
    *You don’t account for functionally equivalent variants
    *You can’t specify in anything other than English
    *You wont take up design challenges
    *Non of this has anything to do with life
    *But..but..but..BIG NUMBERS.

  257. 257
    rich says:

    UP, so we’re just concerned with OOL, you’re fine with evolution?

  258. 258
    rich says:

    sorry, UP > UB. That’s twice I’ve done that!

  259. 259
    rich says:

    Bornagain77 – *All science so far!* 😉

  260. 260

    rich said:

    very good – now you need to show how many comments could have performed the same function across multiple langues,uses of syntax, abbreviations, different audiences, etc.

    rich thinks that in the total search space of possible character combinations available thru chance configuration, there is a significant portion of those configurations that will get the same message across as the post in question. So significant, in fact, that he thinks a configuration of such characters to convey the same meaning can plausibly be arrived at by chance.

    And yet, some believe that debaters of this ilk can be convinced of the implausibility via math. If you don’t accept that a sandcastle is implausible as a chance arrangement of sand, math cannot save you.

  261. 261
    rich says:

    WJM, strawman. But to declare something “deigned” in life that would be one of the missing steps. Don’t try and make a probabilistic argument unless you can do the math – and you can’t.

  262. 262

    You don’t need to do the math in order to know that a sandcastle is implausible as a chance arrangement of sand; one only demands the math in such examples in order to sustain their willful ignorance/denialism.

  263. 263
    bornagain77 says:

    As to keith s claim that “ID is literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence”, I will call keith s trillions of times worse and raise him 147 zeros after that trillions of times worse,,,

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.
    – Doug Axe PhD. – Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

  264. 264
    rich says:

    We already know sandcastles are designed, William. I can even find out who manufactured the buckets and spades. And they don’t reproduce, at least not when I’m watching.

  265. 265
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ rich- Reproduction is the very thing that requires an explanation and your position doesn’t have anything. That means you don’t get to use reproduction to weasel out of a debate.

  266. 266
    Joe says:

    rich exposes his cluelessness:

    Don’t try and make a probabilistic argument unless you can do the math – and you can’t.

    LoL!!!!!11!!1!! YOU need to provide the probabilities and you cannot. YOURS is the probabilistic position. It’s as if you are just totally unaware of everything, especially your ignorance.

  267. 267
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Didn’t I recently read about the despicable act of outing someone in a blog? Someone got very upset about this. Up until now, I have only known him as Rich. That could be a reference to his financial status for all I know.

  268. 268
    Joe says:

    Earth to keiths- Your alleged bomb is nothing but an ignorance-filled dud. Deal with it.

  269. 269
    Upright BiPed says:

    UP, so we’re just concerned with OOL, you’re fine with evolution?

    I have no problem with life’s ability to adapt and change over time. Given that the products of information are not locally determined by physical law, it’s an inevitable result of translation. But my thoughts on evolution are not an answer to the question asked of you.

    Explain the rise of a system with the characteristics you prescribe. Or is it merely assumed?

  270. 270
    the bystander says:

    rich @264
    Your ‘Natural Selection’ is not a method, it is just a term used to bunch random phenotype changes , genotype changes and random generations adapting to random environmental changes. There is no method to the randomness, there is no probability distributions to calculate from and yet you guys have supreme confidence that complex species originated from the random methods ?
    I think most people have taken ‘Natural Selection’ as some kind of scientific method. It is just a term which essentially means ‘bunch of mambo jumbo’

  271. 271
    Joe says:

    And for all we know “Richardthughes” is made up and is not his real name.

  272. 272
    Joe says:

    the bystander- rich doesn’t understand natural selection. He just blindly spews the propaganda.

  273. 273
    rich says:

    Well it seems self replication and evolution can come at 30 bits (0.00375 Kilobytes) – and that’s probably not the lowest it could be.

    http://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

    What do you guys have as the ceiling again?

  274. 274
    kairosfocus says:

    AB, 267: if you were to have bothered to look before you tried to bring my personal name out, you would have noticed that the article in question at TSZ as is onward linked, bears as byline, Richard T Hughes. Your turnabout fails and just earned you a just exposure as a false accuser. KF

  275. 275
    niwrad says:

    rich #248

    A system that creates variability along with a method to select for improvements will accumulate information over time.

    All the illusion of evolutionism is contained in your statement. It will accumulate only what is potentially contained in the (system + method), but zero new organization (what kairosfocus calls FSCO/I).

  276. 276
    rich says:

    KF, didn’t you get chastised by DaveScott for pearl clutching victimitus around use of your real name despite using your initials and linking to your personal website where it is there for all to see? (and its still there). Didn’t you also tell us about BYDAND! and how it relates to your name?

    You don’t even play the victim card very well.

  277. 277
    the bystander says:

    rich @273
    The 30 bit is for channeling information not for replicating RNA.
    Have you read this line :
    The researchers began with pairs of enzymes they’ve been tweaking and designing for the past eight years.
    They designed it for 8 years! and they put it in a soup of nuclei bases. Is this your unguided evolution theory ? Pathetic !

  278. 278
    Andre says:

    Rich

    You have done everything but a dress the issue…. Why?

  279. 279
    ppolish says:

    Rich, “Go Forth & Multiply” command can be quantified as your link shows. Nature is Guided.. Science Fact.

  280. 280
    Joe says:

    rich chokes:

    Well it seems self replication and evolution can come at 30 bits (0.00375 Kilobytes) – and that’s probably not the lowest it could be.

    http://www.wired.com/2009/01/replicatingrna/

    What do you guys have as the ceiling again?

    Umm that wasn’t self-replication. It was a self-sustained replication. Two RNAs are required- one for a template and one as a catalyst. And the catalyst only could catalyze one connection.

    As for evolution, no new function arose. Changes occurred but the functionality remained the same. It just did it a little faster.

    It’s funny watching you blindly post what you don’t understand.

  281. 281
    ppolish says:

    Bystander, 8 years to design is pretty quick. “Image of God” territory. How long would it take a monkey to do that design? Easier for them to type a Dawkins novel:)

  282. 282
    Phinehas says:

    If sneering and scoffing counted as valid arguments, the bomb certainly would have been dropped in this thread. But they don’t, and it hasn’t been.

    One wonders whether the tactic is simply to poison the atmosphere so that onlookers leave in disgust. It certainly has not been the case that the level of discourse has been raised in the last couple of days.

  283. 283
    OldArmy94 says:

    Thorton said:

    One more reason why science doesn’t take ID seriously.

    Science is a method, not an authority, and the so-called “science” practiced by Darwinian proponents is mostly fable wrapped around ignorance.

  284. 284
    drc466 says:

    I’m still waiting for this site to see the participation of what I’d call an intellectually-honest evolutionist. Barry’s point is not that difficult to understand, and should be fairly obvious. Instead we get responses in the form of “ID sucks!”.
    Descent with Modification can include the following:
    1) “Dog-breeding”: expressed variation of existing genetic potential. Experimentally confirmed.
    2) “Damaged goods”: random mutation causes changes in the existing genetic code, causing loss of expression previously available. Experimentally confirmed.
    3) “Junk”: random mutation causes changes in the existing genetic code, but no visible loss of expression occurs. Experimentally confirmed.
    4) “The Bomb”: unguided change causes changes in the existing code, resulting in a novel expression – new functionality ranging from a new gene or protein to major morphological innovation. No experimental evidence exists to support this Hypothesis.
    5) “ID”: guided change can cause changes in the existing code resulting in novel expression. Experimentally confirmed.

    You don’t need mathematical proofs, or advanced degrees, to recognize that the above should be uncontroversial. Points 1-3 are what evolutionists always point to when claiming “evolution is a fact!”, but only point 4 sets evolution apart from ID, YEC, or any other origins theory. YEC’ers admit that starlight and radioactive decay present problems to their theory; ID’ists admit that their theory isn’t really a comprehensive Origins theory because it doesn’t focus on the designer or history, just the design; but evolutionists cannot admit the simple fact that unguided materialistic processes have never experimentally shown anything other than Dog-Breeding, Damaged Goods, or Junk. How sad. Any takers? Rich? A_B? Thorton? Fox?

  285. 285
    Alan Fox says:

    gpuccio writes:

    Andre, Joe:

    Rich does not seem interested in any serious discussion.

    Thorton recycles trivial stereotypes.

    How boring.

    OK, if that is the contribution of the “readmitted” interlocutors, we can really be happy!

    Where are the serious ones?

    I would really appreciate, not necessarily a bomb, but just some debatable argument. Maybe I ask too much.

    Hi Giuseppe (hope that was not presumptuous; I have seen you sign comments here with your full name),

    You must not expect the mountain to come to Mohammed. Most professional scientists working in evolutionary biology and related fields are blissfully unaware of this blog. You could venture out into places where you might encounter such professionals but I think interest in ID has tailed off since Dover and for most people (not UD addicts like me, unfortunately), les chiens aboient, la caravane passe and mainstream scientists are getting on with their work and their lives.

  286. 286
    rich says:

    You misunderstand, bystander. The point is self replication with variation doesn’t have to come at an improbable information cost, which you all think it does.

    http://www.scientificamerican......le/?page=2

    “Joyce’s replicators consist of a mere 50 chemical letters, but the odds of such a sequence appearing by chance are roughly one in 1030, he notes. “If it were six or even 10 letters long, then I’d say we might be in the realm of plausibility, where one could imagine them assembling spontaneously” in the primordial soup.”

    50 letters in under the ID threshold. Joyce is skeptical of the self assembly of *this* molecule, but it is a proof of concept. Shorter molecules might be viable.. and also more likely.

    Joe claiming no new function came about is flight out wrong:

    “”All the original replicators went extinct and it was the new recombinants that took over,” said Joyce. “There wasn’t one winner.
    There was a whole cloud of winners, but there were three mutants that arose that pretty much dominated the population.” ”

    It gain the ability to out-compete.

    Andre, please get over your Butthurt of ID being unable to talk about these things at all, as it is mechanically vacuous.

  287. 287
    Joe says:

    Alan Fox:

    Most professional scientists working in evolutionary biology and related fields are blissfully unaware of this blog.

    So that gives their minions to run around like lunatics? And if they had something to offer it would be in peer-review. Then we could read it and discuss it.

    You could venture out into places where you might encounter such professionals but I think interest in ID has tailed off since Dover and for most people (not UD addicts like me, unfortunately), les chiens aboient, la caravane passe and mainstream scientists are getting on with their work and their lives.

    Such cowardly bloviation. What work would that be, Alan? Are they trying to determine what makes an organism what it is? Are they working on producing testable hypotheses wrt differential accumulations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes?

    Is anyone doing any research that would help NDE actually make a scientific case as opposed to having just a glossy narrative?

    What is this work, Alan? My bet is it has nothing to do with evolutionism.

  288. 288
    Alan Fox says:

    drc466 writes:

    Descent with Modification can include the following:
    1) “Dog-breeding”: expressed variation of existing genetic potential. Experimentally confirmed.
    2) “Damaged goods”: random mutation causes changes in the existing genetic code, causing loss of expression previously available. Experimentally confirmed.
    3) “Junk”: random mutation causes changes in the existing genetic code, but no visible loss of expression occurs. Experimentally confirmed.
    4) “The Bomb”: unguided change causes changes in the existing code, resulting in a novel expression – new functionality ranging from a new gene or protein to major morphological innovation. No experimental evidence exists to support this Hypothesis.
    5) “ID”: guided change can cause changes in the existing code resulting in novel expression. Experimentally confirmed

    Your point 1. Indeed plant and animal husbandry (consider the coevolution of wolves and humans has a 60,000 year history) is a huge confirmation of evolutionary processes. I give you the humble brassica.

    Your point 4 is so wrong, it is not even wrong. Would you like to have a go at a rephrase before I pick up on it?

    Your evidence for 5?

  289. 289
    Joe says:

    rich continues to choke:

    Joe claiming no new function came about is flight out wrong:

    “”All the original replicators went extinct and it was the new recombinants that took over,” said Joyce. “There wasn’t one winner.
    There was a whole cloud of winners, but there were three mutants that arose that pretty much dominated the population.” ”

    It gain the ability to out-compete.

    LoL! That isn’t a function, rich. They could out-compete by using the same function, just faster. All that means is they would run out of resources quicker and then die.

    Cupcake, you just don’t have a clue and your flailing is so like you when you get exposed.

    And it’s Friday! Happy meldown

  290. 290
    ppolish says:

    “Go Forth & Multiply” hardwired into Nature. Nature is commanded. Nature follows orders. Nature isn’t perfect though.

  291. 291
    Joe says:

    Evidence for 5 is in “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century” . A hypothesis was formed in “Not By Chance” and the evidence for it is in “The Evolution Revolution”.

    And my bet is you don’t understand point 4, so I challenge you to correct him.

  292. 292
    rich says:

    joeG: increased metabolic speed is not a function.

  293. 293
    Joe says:

    rich, why are you such a liar? Metabolism? Really? Metabolism with RNAs? Really?

    What an ignorant cupcake you are, rich.

    The SAME functionality. The new variants could just do it faster.

  294. 294
    Joe says:

    Someone come help me stitch my side shut, please. Rich owes me a new keyboard and monitor.

  295. 295
    rich says:

    Joe, write your angry letter to “Nature”:

    http://www.nature.com/subjects/rna-metabolism

    Get an adult to help you with the stamp, address and envelope.

    ID – so happy he’s one of yours 😉

  296. 296
    Joe says:

    Well rich, there still wasn’t any new functionality, even Joyce said that in his interview in SciAm. And it wasn’t self-replication.

    True, I was unaware they redefined metabolism, but you are still wrong on all the other counts.

    They could out-compete by using the same function, just faster. Still stands.

  297. 297
    drc466 says:

    AF @ 288,

    1 – Uncontroversial. Also unhelpful to evolution – proving you can take existing function and mix/match to get new variations on existing functions, doesn’t help you get new functions.
    4 – No, I’m satisfied w/ my phrasing. I eagerly wait your disproof.
    5 – Rich’s link in 286 will serve. Or any major human innovation in the last 5000 years.

  298. 298
    rich says:

    But Joe – your sides! Your keyboard!

  299. 299
    Joe says:

    RNA metabolism refers to any events in the life cycle of ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules, including their synthesis, folding/unfolding, modification, processing and degradation.

    Their synthesis was artificial.

  300. 300
    Joe says:

    rich, my side and keyboard went after your first post on the subject.

  301. 301
    Joe says:

    Strange that everything I am reading on RNA metabolism refers to what goes on onside a cell…

  302. 302
    rich says:

    And it took you until post 294 to register it. Perhaps you need a faster metabolism to be competitive?

  303. 303
    rich says:

    That’s an impressive 4 minutes of reading, Joe
    (Less commentating time).

  304. 304
    Joe says:

    LoL! Your first post pertaining to the self-sustained replication of RNAs- you know the subject we were discussing. Duh

  305. 305
    Joe says:

    Well rich, you can always try to find an article that doesn’t have RNA metabolism as how RNAs are formed inside of a cell.

    Have at it.

  306. 306
    Upright BiPed says:

    I guess I can assume there is no response forthcoming, and that the physical conditions required to actually organize the first cell on earth are simply assumed for obvious reasons.

  307. 307
    Joe says:

    BINGO! Upright Biped wins!

  308. 308
    Learned Hand says:

    WJM @ 247, that sounds very much like you’re saying that it’s pointless to test ID’s design-detection tools because biased Darwinists wouldn’t acknowledge the results. I’m not familiar with any serious scientific enterprise that took its ball and went home because its critics were stubborn.

    If IDists could show that in a blinded trial they were able to detect design with 0 false positives, or just an overall 80% success rate, I think they’d have a vastly stronger argument for persuading not just their critics, but the disinterested majority of mathematicians and information scientists. The incredulity IDists show to any suggestion that such tests would be useful to their cause is very interesting to me. I don’t think it’s consistent with a belief that the tools would work; I think it’s an indication that few, if any, IDists think they could detect design in a blinded trial.

    What about the scores of peer-reviewed papers published that employ that toolkit or versions of it?

    They don’t detect design, they confirm existing knowledge or assumptions. As far as I’m aware, they all follow the same pattern of confirming design in subjects where design is already either known or (in the case of life) assumed. Also, if I threw up a list of paper titles in a blog post, I think the regulars here would complain that it was a literature bluff, dirty Darwinist debate tactic #666.

    If people are “undecided” about whether or not high-precision, inter-dependent, complex 3D machinery and corresponding multi-layer digital blueprint, assembly and control code can come about via chance, no math or argument or empirical evidence matters in the face of such delusion/foolishness.

    That’s the language of feeling that things must surely be designed. It doesn’t have much to do with demonstrating it empirically, which seems like it should be a natural goal of the movement even if you suspect critics would be skeptical. When has anyone ever said, “I have this amazing tool that does something spectacular! Let’s all just assume that it works, no need to test it.”

  309. 309
    rich says:

    Joe, I don’t need to. I have a perfectly good, unqualified definition that you just learned of 10 minutes ago.

    UB: I’m not sure how this dovetails with research on prebiotic conditions, but are you willing to accept self assembly given the right materials < The UPB?

  310. 310
    Dionisio says:

    #285 Alan Fox

    Did you forget to answer my questions in #159?
    Or maybe didn’t notice over 7 comments I posted (#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154) that were addressed to you?

    I’m sure other folks reading this might suspect you purposely avoided commenting on my posts for some particular reasons, but I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. 🙂

    In order to save you time scrolling up/down this thread to locate my posts, I’ve copied/pasted the latest one below for you:

    #49 Alan Fox

    [#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154, #159 follow-up]

    Perhaps better you look at this thread yourself if you want to.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-502733

    There are over 550 posts with reports showing very complex mechanisms for which I have not seen a description of how we got them to begin with.

    Scientists are busy trying to figure out how they work.

    Are you aware of a detailed description of how these mechanisms evolved to their current status?

    Can you provide links?

    Thank you.

  311. 311
    Joe says:

    rich- you are using the definition out-of-context. You lose, cupcake.

  312. 312
    Joe says:

    BTW “unqualified” definitions aren’t any good. Cupcake

  313. 313
    rich says:

    Go write to Nature, then Joe. Use lots of colours to get their attention.

    Also make sure that “People” is defined as “People in the solar system”, etc 😉

  314. 314
    Dionisio says:

    To Whom This May Concern

    Y’all are welcome to answer the questions posted in #310.
    That post, as well as 7 previous posts (#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154), were addressed to Alan Fox, but since apparently he skipped them, maybe someone else can do it for him? 🙂


    Большое спасибо!

    🙂

  315. 315
    Joe says:

    You’re a moron so I should write Nature? How does that work?

    All metabolism takes place inside of cells. RNA metabolism refers to their “synthesis, folding/unfolding, modification, processing and degradation” inside of a cell.

    Don’t blame me just because you are too stupid to understand that.

  316. 316
    Joe says:

    BTW, rich, not one word on the metabolic speed nor metabolism in the original peer-reviewed paper.

    Gee, I wonder why?

  317. 317
    Upright BiPed says:

    are you willing to accept self assembly given the right materials

    Rich, to actually organize a living cell, a system of translation would have to self-assemble that has at least four rather distinct qualities. Firstly, it would have to establish a set of relationships that cannot be established locally via physical law, or the system could not function. Secondly, it would also have to establish within a medium a finite set of patterns which are independent of the lowest total potential energy state of the medium itself. Thirdly, a set of systematic protocols would need to emerge to establish the dimensional operation of the system. And fourthly, the details of the construction of this system would have to be encoded in the arrangement of the medium at the very point where the other conditions are met. So what unorganized material did you have in mind?

  318. 318
    rich says:

    UB: I was referring to this:

    “Joyce’s replicators consist of a mere 50 chemical letters, but the odds of such a sequence appearing by chance are roughly one in 1030, he notes. “If it were six or even 10 letters long, then I’d say we might be in the realm of plausibility, where one could imagine them assembling spontaneously” in the primordial soup.”

  319. 319
    rich says:

    Joe: “BTW, rich, not one word on the metabolic speed nor metabolism in the original peer-reviewed paper.

    Gee, I wonder why?”

    Because you postulated it:

    “They could out-compete by using the same function, just faster.”

  320. 320
    Dionisio says:

    Alan Fox

    Hey, buddy, don’t forget to pick up on my posts:

    (#87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154, #159, #310).

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521643

    If you’re too busy or just can’t handle my posts, feel free to delegate the task on one of your fellow comrades (there are many of them here). They’ll be delighted to do it for you. After all, that’s what comrades are for! 🙂

    BTW, I wonder why they all like it so much here?

    Aren’t there more blogs like this out there? hmmm…

    🙂

  321. 321
    Acartia_bogart says:

    K @274: “AB, 267: if you were to have bothered to look before you tried to bring my personal name out, you would have noticed that the article in question at TSZ as is onward linked, bears as byline, Richard T Hughes. Your turnabout fails and just earned you a just exposure as a false accuser. KF”

    I’m sorry. I must have missed where Rich provided a link to this article. I also missed the part about you asking if it would be OK to use his full name. Rich uses the username Rich on UD. Simply because you can easily find his full name is not justification for using it. Anybody can find your real name in less than ten seconds just by clicking on your username. Does that mean that it is OK for me to post it? If not, then you are a hypocrite.

  322. 322
    Dionisio says:

    Alan Fox

    In case you have technical difficulties scrolling up/down this page to locate posts, here’s the link to one you missed:

    Post #87

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521241

  323. 323
    Upright BiPed says:

    Rich, I am aware of what you were referring to. Unfortunately Joyce’s work never attains translation, and the cell cannot be organized otherwise.

  324. 324
    rich says:

    We’re obviously talking pre-cell / pre DNA and I’m with Monod that de novo DNA is a very improbable starting point.

    Are you going to ask me for a step by step narrative? Can ID give a similar account?

  325. 325
    kairosfocus says:

    A_B, passed by, got a moment. If you bothered to follow the link already given before making unfounded accusations, you would have seen the heading of a TSZ article, with the byline. Which is what I took up. If you take up my byline, you will see: kairosfocus, as in abbreviation KF.

    PS: I see come strawmen caricatures. What is to be replicated is a gated, encapsulated, protein-enzyme using, metabolising, ribosome using cell that has a code based von Neumann self replicator facility. With some dependence that is down at a genome of a bit over 100 k bases, and they have cut down fully functioning forms to 300+ kbases, which makes my 100 – 1 mn bases a reasonable bracket for what needs to be accounted for. Something that starts with assembled RNA strands, dodging synthesis of bases in a Darwin’s pond is not good enough for OOL. The desperate stretches speak volumes on what is simply not there but is covered neatly by a priori materialism dressed in a lab coat and specifying what “must” have happened somehow.

    PPS: I have asked for a very simple thing, to spare me spam waves. I ask for another, to leave my uninvolved family including minor children alone. The guttersnipe bullyboyism and patent hate at various abusive sites and the enabling behaviour for such nihilism as we can see above, speak for themselves. And, I will bide and fecht!

  326. 326
  327. 327
    rich says:

    ” I ask for another, to leave my uninvolved family including minor children alone.”

    If this happened, it is reprehensible. If you can provide details we’ll see what can be done on ‘our end”.

  328. 328
    DavidD says:

    UB – “Rich, I am aware of what you were referring to. Unfortunately Joyce’s work never attains translation, and the cell cannot be organized otherwise.”

    Not to mention the man manipulates his experiments almost every step of the way, even creating a special designer enzyme in the process. Never reveals how blind undirected forces accomplish anything and never answers critics about his own biased intelligent fingerprints, while failing to actually prove anything, even with his own intelligent purpose and intentions. Joyce is nothing more than old News recycling, but clearly a religious icon for the faithful anyway who “Just want to believe”

  329. 329
    rich says:

    1. Why do you guys keep on bring up religion?
    2. Should we take ‘experimentation’ off the table then, DavidD, as they have intelligent input?

  330. 330
    Upright BiPed says:

    No, given that you argue for an unguided origin of cellular life, I would only ask that you indicate a physical principle at work that would simultaneously lead to the establishment of non-material relationships, thermodynamically-inert representations, systematic protocols, and functional information.

    I can name only one. This is no doubt a direct result of there being only one other example of this phenomenon demonstrated to exist anywhere in the physical world. That would be in the translation of language and mathematics.

    So, what is that principle that supports your belief?

  331. 331
    Dionisio says:

    rich

    Did you miss my posts too?

    #41:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521158

    #63:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521185

    Guys, do you skip my posts because they’re so boring?
    Well, I don’t have the histrionic skills other folks here have. Sorry that I don’t know how to entertain others.

    I know my friends and relatives avoid talking to me because I’m so boring that they are concerned about falling asleep while engaging in a conversation with me.

    The only people who dare to have conversations with me are those with heavy insomnia issues, because my conversations work like a cocktail of linden tree tea with melatonin, but much faster.

  332. 332
    Acartia_bogart says:

    K: “PPS: I have asked for a very simple thing, to spare me spam waves. I ask for another, to leave my uninvolved family including minor children alone. The guttersnipe bullyboyism and patent hate at various abusive sites and the enabling behaviour for such nihilism as we can see above, speak for themselves. And, I will bide and fecht!”

    And I have no problem with this. But the least you can do in return is to give the same respect to others. Yes, the link had a person’s full name who’s first name was Richard. But Richard is a common name. But your comment with the link, including the full name in your comment, left little doubt that this was Rich. He may or may not be OK with this, but how do you know?

  333. 333
    DavidD says:

    Rich – “1. Why do you guys keep on bring up religion?”

    Because of your side’s insistence that religion be excluded and yet you all turn directly around making Faith Affirmations and other claims that have more to do with religious dogma than actual scientific experimentation which provides satisfying proof to everyone that blind undirected forces of physics and chemicals ONLY can accomplish anything remotely complex and biologically sophisticated. I have no problem with your beliefs, but your supposed to be the anti religious rational ones, which is fine. But maybe you should start actually proving your own cherished doctrines. Remember, you folks are the ones that invented them and insisted no intelligence is necessary.

    Rich – “2. Should we take ‘experimentation’ off the table then, DavidD, as they have intelligent input?”

    Actually no, I like them. Every single one of them is an example of how intelligence attempts to accomplish things using a mind that has a purposed goal in view. Still, if you don’t like it, then please by all means tell us what Dr Joyce and his white lab coated assistants represent if not intelligence ? Blind forces with no purpose or intent ?

  334. 334
    Joe says:

    OK rich has ally lost it and can only babble incoherently. Typical cupcake.

    So rich brings up an example, misrepresents it, lies about it and when caught becomes the horse’s arse that he is.

  335. 335
    Dionisio says:

    rich

    are you still there?

    missed this?

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521670

    🙂
    ?

  336. 336
    rich says:

    UB: Chemistry?

    David:

    (1) I’m not bringing up religion
    (2) Does anyone else agree that experiments can only show what design can do?

    Joe: Have a cookie! 😉

  337. 337
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich, FYI, over the last several years I have had to deal with outing tactics on wife and children, with attempts to publish an address which because of imprecision of local addresses implicated relatives who don’t have a clue about these debates; though I would pity someone fool enough to try to harass them. As for the behaviour of specific individuals hosting outright hate sites and showing disturbing obsessiveness, let’s just say I have had to talk with Attorney-General and police. All of which should have been noted and properly acted on years ago by those hosting certain sites. That’s beyond just plain nastiness, bully boyism and the like. Beyond that I would say no more in this forum. KF

  338. 338
    rich says:

    Dionisio

    (1) was a not very elegant snark that ID output has been *abysmal*

    (2) Occam’s razor – creating an entity more complex than what we need to describe with no evidence for that entity, amongst other things.

  339. 339
    rich says:

    KF – can you PM me here?

    If you can forward the relevant communications from the wrong-doers I’ll work with the moderators at the sites I frequent to try and take action.

  340. 340
    keith s says:

    bornagain77:

    keith s trying to use fallacious statistical math to try prove that God does not exist is a bit like a fish trying to prove that water does not exist.

    My argument isn’t against God’s existence. It’s against the notion that the diversity of life on earth was created or designed. The evidence shows that this notion is deeply mistaken.

    Also, ixnay on the odGay! Didn’t you get the memo? ID is supposed to be science, not religion.

  341. 341
    ppolish says:

    Occam knew God did it. God was the simplest edge of Father Occam’s razor. Smart preacher man.

  342. 342
    kairosfocus says:

    A_b, don’t be silly. Richard is common in history, and common enough today, it is even in comics. All I did was to use the byline of an article that tried to critique work I did, linking the response where headline date, byline and opening remarks are used to motivate my own reply. You seem to be obsessed with projecting the notion that using a byline appearing as authorship just below the headline is improper; nonsense. That looks uncommonly like trying to pretend to immoral equivalency, and thus to the fallacy, “he hit back first.” Where, there is no warrant. What it does reveal, though, is that you are impervious to evidence and to duty of fairness. Game over. KF

  343. 343
    ppolish says:

    Brother Occam, what is the simplest explanation of Creation?

    “God. Duh”

    Man of few words,

  344. 344
    Upright BiPed says:

    Chemistry

    The system operates by chemistry regardless of its origin. So in fact, the thing you suggest supports your beliefs actually determines nothing of the question at hand. With that perspective, I assume it explains your certainty as well

  345. 345
    Joe says:

    Wow, rich. Nice to see that you can lie, get caught and not miss a beat.

    Blind watchmaker output is zero. The evidence for the entity is the design. And guess what? Your position can’t account for what we observe. That is why we infer ID.

  346. 346
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich, unless you get a jurisdictional court order you cannot police a Google site, I checked — that holds for at least two blogs one direct one in comment threads . . . and I still have ninety odd pieces of cyberstalking nastiness and implied or explicit threats in an unconnected blog’s pending box from one unhinged individual who keeps on popping up and is treated as if what he has been doing is normal, reasonable, civil behaviour. Thank you prof Felsenstein for trying to speak up recently, and yes there was a recent spamming surge and only crazy length pass keys lock out the regular breaking into one of my email accounts that I used to have to deal with on an astonishingly frequent basis. As for forums we need not name, the moderators knew what was going on for years and tolerated it, indeed tolerate it still. Too late to pretend to clean up now. As for TSZ, its problem is, it acts as a more polite front for at least one of the sites I will not name, thus ending up in enabler territory. KF

  347. 347
    Dionisio says:

    338 rich

    Thank you for responding.

    Why did it take you so long to respond?

    You posted many comments in this very thread after I asked you questions in posts #41 and #63.

    Why didn’t you respond earlier?

    Is it because you were busy answering more relevant posts?

    Now, as a bonus in appreciation for responding, though with a huge delay and after some reminding, I invite you to help your comrade AF responding the questions associated with the links in post #87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154, #159, #310.

    Have fun!

    🙂

  348. 348
    rich says:

    Are you referring to AtBC, KF?

  349. 349
    rich says:

    Dionisio:

    I don’t want this to be “Ask Rich” – I have thoughts but evolutionary theory demands a better defender / explainer than me!

    But even in this thread, look at the amount of ‘how did that happen’ about evolution and the complete absence of a corresponding design narrative.

  350. 350
    Dionisio says:

    340 keith s

    I invite you to help your comrade AF with responding the questions associated with the links in post #87, #101, #119, #136, #141, #153, #154, #159, #310.

    Enjoy it!

    🙂

  351. 351
    rich says:

    UB: Why isn’t chemistry sufficient?

  352. 352
    Andre says:

    Unbelievable, Rich wants to know why chemistry is not sufficient…. Will Rich accept the answer?

    Stay tuned……

  353. 353
    rich says:

    just looking for insights, Andre. Make a good case – oh wait you haven’t you’er just throwing rocks – or maybe you’re working on the “How ID did it” narrative. that would be Super!

  354. 354
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s at 340 you state:

    “Also, ixnay on the odGay! Didn’t you get the memo? ID is supposed to be science, not religion.”

    Tell you what keith s, since you are into sharing memos, I have a couple of memos for you. first, contrary to what Tyson may have told you, modern science was born out of, and is dependent on, Theistic presuppositions.

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website
    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    Second memo, Darwinism is far more dependent on its faulty Theological presuppositions than ID is dependent on its proper Theological presuppositions. ID makes the minimal claim the Intelligence exists, whereas core Darwinian arguments are reliant ‘upon sectarian (faulty) claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties.’

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Thus keith s, if you a so concerned about keeping God out of science, I suggest cleaning up your own Theological backyard first.

  355. 355
    Thorton says:

    350+ posts in, not one brave IDer has stepped up to provide any CSI calculations or methodology.

    I guess we can flush the “CSI” turd down the swirly bowl.

  356. 356
    keith s says:

    Dionisio,

    I have a better idea. Since the topic of this thread is bombs, why not help Barry defuse the bomb I’ve left ticking for him?

    After all, if the likelihood that ID is true is less than one in a trillion, then all of the anti-evolution arguments in the world won’t help you. To save ID, you need to defuse the bomb.

    Good luck.

  357. 357
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Rich said,

    “look at the amount of ‘how did that happen’ about evolution and the complete absence of a corresponding design narrative.”

    I say,

    Perhaps you missed it but earlier I explained The it is the obligation of party advocating that a phenomena can be arrived at algorithmically to describe the algorithm.

    on the other hand

    By definition a detailed step by step procedure or formula can not be given for the production of CSI.

    You can’t describe the algorithm that produced a non-computable function.

    peace

  358. 358
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton,

    Did you complete miss the point of the discussion about non computable functions like Pi and CSI?

  359. 359
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman

    The it is the obligation of party advocating that a phenomena can be arrived at algorithmically to describe the algorithm.

    It’s a feedback process that involves random (WRT reproductive fitness) genetic variations filtered by selection which are then carried forward into future generations as heritable traits. Also called evolution.

    Science has known about it for the better part of a century. For some unknown reason the ID-Creationists still haven’t gotten the memo.

  360. 360
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman

    Did you complete miss the point of the discussion about non computable functions like Pi and CSI

    No, it’s crystal clear. Since no one can compute or measure “CSI” it’s a completely subjective and therefore worthless metric for detecting Intelligent Design.

    Got it!

  361. 361
    bornagain77 says:

    Dennett’s Algorithm: An Exercise in Circularity
    Tom Bethell October 20, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90491.html

  362. 362
    drc466 says:

    keith s,

    Barry is correct – your “ticking bomb” is nothing more than one huge unsubstantiated assertion. You basically state that the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is undeniable, link to the already-responded-to Talkorigins “29 Evidences” doc, and pull a magic number (one in a trillion) out of your…hat.

    The biggest weakness in your “bomb” is that it doesn’t address Barry’s OP – it fails to provide any evidence that natural processes can innovate:

    This is a big problem for IDers. They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution.

    ^ This is a flat-out lie – either that, or a complete inability to understand the simple concept that Down is different than Up. Refer to my post #284. The “barrier” that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution is the simple fact that you cannot “climb Mount Improbable” if the only direction you can move is sideways or down!

    There, I’ve answered your silly “bomb”. All you have to do to prove me laughably, ridiculously wrong is to in-turn answer my post of #284: provide experimental, laboratory evidence of unguided chemical and biological processes creating innovative and novel genes, proteins, structures, etc. Say, for example, a 30-year-long experiment on bacteria or fruit-flies where they didn’t always run in to “barrier”s to further micro-evolution. Not assertions. Not computer simulations. Not quotes of what some evolutionist thinks is “reasonable”. Actual, real, matter-and-energy results.

    Should be easy for a confident person like you, right?

    Show me “UP”.

  363. 363
    Upright BiPed says:

    rich,

    Why isn’t chemistry sufficient?

    In order to organize the cell, you have to translate information into physical effects. To translate information requires that the natural physicochemical discontinuity between the arrangment of the medium and its post-translation effect be preserved by the translation system. Otherwise the system would become locked into physical determinsm and could not (and would not) function. Because this discontinuity is a physical necessity and must be preserved, a set of relationships are thereby established that otherwise wouldn’t exist, producing effects that have no theromodynamic pathway from the arrangements of the medium that caused their production. What properties of chemistry are you suggesting are sufficient to establish such a system?

  364. 364
    rich says:

    DRC446

    Your own VJT finds up here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-373760

    “I note that for the duplicated genome, the specified complexity Chi is much greater than 1, so Dembski’s logic seems to imply that any instance of gene duplication is the result of intelligent agency and not chance.”

    Information added.

  365. 365
    wd400 says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    Pi is a computable number, I’m not sure it even many something to save CSI is an uncomputable function. What are the inputs and outputs to this function?

  366. 366
    rich says:

    UB:

    You’re fixated on the cell. I’ll have to go and read up.. nut may not have an answer. But you’re fine with chemical abiogenisis, now?

  367. 367
    Thorton says:

    drc466

    The “barrier” that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution is the simple fact that you cannot “climb Mount Improbable” if the only direction you can move is sideways or down!

    Completely missing the critical fact that fitness peaks aren’t stationary but move up and down (and sideways) over time as the environment changes. An animal on a local fitness maximum will no longer be on the local maximum when the environment changes, therefore it can move in the “up” direction again towards the new maximum.

    Major lack of understanding of how evolution actually works there drc466.

  368. 368
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton said

    “Since no one can compute or measure “CSI” it’s a completely subjective and therefore worthless metric for detecting Intelligent Design.”

    I say

    Pi is also not computable. Is it subjective and are the inferences drawn from it worthless?

    come on man use your head

    peace

  369. 369
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman

    Pi is also not computable. Is it subjective and are the inferences drawn from it worthless?

    Pi and CSI are completely different things, not in any way shape or form comparable. No one claims objects are designed because they contain “Pi”.

    It’s hard to even grasp an argument so fundamentally dorked up as yours.

  370. 370
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    WD400,

    you say,

    Pi is a computable number,

    I say,

    When does the program stop?

    You say,

    I’m not sure it even many something to save CSI is an uncomputable function. What are the inputs and outputs to this function?

    I say,

    please rephrase I’m not sure I follow

    If I understand you correctly the answer to your question is

    CSI is the output non algorithmic entities are the input

    peace

  371. 371
    kairosfocus says:

    Thorton, boldfaced false declarations in the teeth of the actual truth just tell us how little your word is worth. You have seen peer reviewed methods and values building on well known info theory. You have seen simpler metrics relating to the sort of metrics commonly used with files in an info age. You have had your own posts worked out, you have been invited to do same. You have been given rationale and warrant, you have been pointed to where you can get more. None of that is of any effect you just wish to drum out falsehoods. Very well, you have told one and all that you are not one who is interested in truth, accuracy or fairness. Duly, what you say in future will be of no account unless separately corroborated. KF

  372. 372
    Dionisio says:

    356 keith s

    Why didn’t you respond my questions first?

    Don’t want admit being on the losing side of this debate?

    Go ahead, try again… or let the onlookers and lurkers see by themselves another confirmation of what’s going on here.

    🙂

  373. 373
    wd400 says:

    I think you are confusing non-computability with the most famous example of a non-computable function (the halting problem).

    A number is computable if it can be calculated with arbitrary precision. That’s true of pi. Pi, like most numbers, can’t be expressed as finite decimal expansion, but that’s not related to its computability.

    The other bit is pretty clear, I think. Functions take inputs are give outputs. If CSI is a function (and it surely needs to be if it is an uncomputable function) something goes in, and something comes out. What are those things?

  374. 374
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I should have said, you and co, it’s been a group effort to push a talking point agenda.

  375. 375
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton says

    Pi and CSI are completely different things

    I say,

    Ask yourself what things like Pi and the golden ratio have in common

    How about the all contain complex information that corresponds to a specification

    Is the light coming on now?

    When we say that CSI is an indicator of design all we are saying is that it can’t be produced by an algorithm.

    Can you compute Pi with an algorithm? If so when does the program stop?

  376. 376
    kairosfocus says:

    WD400, on evidence of trillions of directly observed cases in point, intelligently directed configuration towards relevant purposes goes in, often influenced by understanding of forces, materials and possibilities in the material world, and FSCO/I rich objects come out. Trillions of cases in point all around us. I suspect by non-computable, the matter is that aspects of things manifesting FSCO/I are not produced by mechanical necessity and/or blind chance without intelligent direction or supervision. For instance, we can write a program to write out the Gettysburg address, but that will be because we put it in. We can try a random doc generation or code making from scratch exercise, but always it is that outputs are trivial or reflect what was put in intelligently, and more. KF

  377. 377
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    From Wikipedia

    The language consisting of all Turing machine descriptions paired with all possible input streams on which those Turing machines will eventually halt, is not recursive. The halting problem is therefore called non-computable or undecidable.

    peace

  378. 378
    Acartia_bogart says:

    I: “Duly, what you say in future will be of no account unless separately corroborated. KF”

    Why don’t you make this another lame Darwinian Debating Device. Then you can just declare it, take your ball and go home. Alternately, you might try rational and logical discussion with less negative tone.

    Just a suggestion.

  379. 379
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Where, for biological entities, what we see are going concern FSCO/I rich entities. There is no good reason to say there is good empirical warrant for getting to a cell from a Darwin’s pond etc bu=y blind chance and necessity. With existing organisms, observed micro changes are generally based on trivial scope info changes. No one has solved and demonstrated blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanisms required to achieve novel major body plans requiring 10 – 100+ mn new base pairs and major reorganisation. Extrapolations of hill climbing, on scope of change, pop size and time to fix, are in deep trouble. And that’s before we notice e.g. the deep isolation of many required protein fold domains. And more.

  380. 380
    kairosfocus says:

    A-b, namecalling dismissal, in a context of twisting legitimate citation of byline into false accusation of outing. I simply note to you that selective hyperskepticism is so significant that the new atheists are being forced to face it in the context of elevator-gate and similar scandals. And this, in the context of trying to enable barefaced falsehood. Sad, and sadly revealing. KF

  381. 381
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Whenever I hear anyone say things like trillions of cases I immediately discount it unless they have provided some concrete examples.

  382. 382
    Alan Fox says:

    Apologies to Dionisio for having a life outside the blogosphere. Picking up on the comment I addressed to you

    viz:

    Are you sure you haven’t been watching some video cartoon showing molecules trundling around as if on an assembly line? Life is not like the video model. I see “choreography” does appear in the title of several papers in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. I doubt this has anything to do with “Intelligent Design”. I’d have a look at your first choice of “latest report in top journal” if you’d be kind enough to link to it.

    You’ve addressed numerous comments to me but none seem to directly link to the primary literature. Have I missed something?

  383. 383
    Alan Fox says:

    Oops forgot to close tag

    @ Dionisio

    You’ve addressed numerous comments to me but none seem to directly link to the primary literature. Have I missed something?

  384. 384
    Axel says:

    You’ve learnt absolutely nothing, have you, A_b.

    It’s wearisome enough explaining to materialists who occasionally acknowledge a point, and occasionally contribute something, however modestly, but KF was speaking about literally evasions – an absolute refusal to engage.

  385. 385
    Alan Fox says:

    Upright Biped writes:

    In order to organize the cell, you have to translate information into physical effects.

    Why?

  386. 386
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    WD400

    by non-computable in mean unable to be produced in it’s entirety by an algorithm run a finite turning machine.

    If I wanted to be mathematically precise I suppose I would use the term Transcendental in the case of Pi

    peace

  387. 387
    Axel says:

    Correction: ‘…. literally endless evasions.’

  388. 388
    Upright BiPed says:

    rich,

    You’re fixated on the cell.

    This exchange began with you sending me a link to a paper I was well aware of. It’s filled with dense technical langauge that focuses solely on the rise of the translation apparatus required to organize the cell. And now you say – I’m “fixated on the cell”.

    Given that your fellow travelers here are shouting down ID, I’m sure there’s a compliment in there somewhere.

    I’ll have to go and read up.

    By all means, do just that. That is what I did (for the past five years). I can tell you there is no silver bullet against the rise of a semiotic system to organize the cell. Cellular organization and open-ended evolution have very specific identifiable physical requirements that are found nowhere else in the physical world except during the translation of recorded language and mathermatics. They are not going away.

    But you’re fine with chemical abiogenisis, now?

    Several times you’ve asked me to agree to something for which there is no substantive evidence. It’s almost as if I cannot be trusted to agree to the demonstrable truth of a matter. I am not offended by this. I suppose it is only a reasonable response given the heat generated by the debate. What I am wondering is how well you walk it the way you talk it. Are you prepared (regardless of your final disposition) to cease your assault on design proponents if you should suddenly find – as an example – that in order that to organize the first cell, it required a (fundamentally) irreducible system of two sets of objects, one set encoding the information and the other set establishing what the effect of that encoding will be? What happens if you should discover that this is the only way to preserve the discontinuity in the system? What will happen if it suddenly occurs to you that these things were proposed in theory by Nobel winners and confirmed by experiment? Will you stop belittling people on principle, or is this just the way it is?

    All rhetoric questions, of course.

    cheers

  389. 389
    keith s says:

    Dionisio,

    Why didn’t you respond my questions first?

    For exactly the reasons I already gave:

    I have a better idea. Since the topic of this thread is bombs, why not help Barry defuse the bomb I’ve left ticking for him?

    After all, if the likelihood that ID is true is less than one in a trillion, then all of the anti-evolution arguments in the world won’t help you. To save ID, you need to defuse the bomb.

    Good luck.

    [Emphasis added]

    If you can’t identify a flaw in my argument, then my argument stands. If my argument stands, the bomb explodes, and ID is toast. Can you (or Barry, or anyone else here) defuse the bomb?

  390. 390
    ppolish says:

    Keith, seems no one is bothering to defuse your bomb. Let us know if it explodes. Boom.

  391. 391
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    I call Mung’s bluff, and he promptly folds. Why am I not surprised?

    I told people where they could go to find your arguments defused. If you want to say you called my bluff and I folded I certainly can’t stop you.

  392. 392
    kairosfocus says:

    Re A_b: Just the number of pages on the Internet is well past the trillion threshold, never mind the other artifacts of centuries of increasingly industrial civilisation. How many book pages, file pages, etc? Before we get to screws, bolts, cartridges and more. The cluster of posts in this thread is an example of a large number of cases of FSCO/I, which have easily evaluated value, based on 7 bits per ASCII character. Being in known languages and non-gibberish we have functional specificity. But so intense is the irrational no concessions denialism and indoctrination that FSCO/I must never be acknowledged, that there is a clinging to the absurdity of denying the obvious, the evident, the warranted, the things staring one in the face. KF

  393. 393
    Joe says:

    rich:

    You’re fixated on the cell.

    Then give us the starting point for evolutionism. We are always told that chemical abiogenesis is not evolution. Darwin started with simple living organisms- prokaryotic-like. What does rich the cupcake’s version of evolution start with?

    But you’re fine with chemical abiogenisis, now?

    Fine with it being totally nonsensical.

  394. 394
    rich says:

    Mung, I obviously don’t want to to play “whack a mole” with gaps in evolutionary theory.

    I appreciate there are several steps you may find insurmountable, but I obviously don’t want to keep bouncing between them.

  395. 395
    Axel says:

    Hilarious! A complete madhouse. They’re back in force, mob-handed. Just as Barry feared! All we need now are Gregory and Elizabeth.

  396. 396
    wd400 says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    OK, but that’s not the standard definition of a non-computable number. It’s also of no relevance to any of the points you are trying to make (most real numbers are transcendental, that doesn’t make them any less real).

    I really don’t know what point you are making by claiming CSI is a non-commutable function, though I suspect its based on similar confusion as the one you’ve made with pi.

  397. 397
    Dionisio says:

    349 rich

    Is that the best you can offer?

    Wanna give it another try?

    Go ahead!

    🙂

  398. 398
    Mung says:

    rich:

    How do IDists explain the spectacular lack of examples? It is not helping them.

    Rich, there are literally trillions of examples, starting with the posts in this thread, the wider Internet, libraries and a world of technology, where we directly know that FSCO/I exists and is a directly known result of design. We also have the needle in haystack analysis which directly beings out why that should be so. But, in your zero concessions, selective hyperskeptical policy you refuse to acknowledge that such exists. Telling, and underscoring the point.

  399. 399
    drc466 says:

    rich @364 – Strike One: vjt was referencing gene copying, which is a duplication of existing information. Sideways, not up. Qualifies as dog-breeding, junk, and possibly damaged goods depending on the effect of the copy.

    Thorton @367 – Strike Two: You tried to refute me by changing the definition of “up”. I’m not referring to fitness, I’m referring to the creation of novel features. In any case, you simply provided what the theory says – you did not provide any empirical evidence for the unguided creation of novel functions.

    Keith S @389 – Strike Three: I’ve already defused your “bomb” in 362 – defuse mine.

    As I said, “The Bomb” is simple – show physical evidence of the unguided, materialistic generation of new genes, proteins, structures, etc. C’mon, you’ve got 50 years of experimentation with bacteria, fruit flies, organic compounds, etc. Make me look silly, I’m begging you. Show Barry the Bomb.

    Or be the first intellectually honest evolutionist I’ve met and admit that all attempts to demonstrate “macro” evolution generating novel features have failed, and decades of experimentation with breeding and mutating have only shown dog-breeding, damaged goods, and junk.

  400. 400
    rich says:

    And again on the folly of FCSIO (and how it differs from CSI) as ‘exemplified by the internet’

    *You model spontaneous generation (of text)
    *You don’t account for functionally equivalent variants
    *You can’t specify in anything other than English
    *You wont take up design challenges
    *Non of this has anything to do with life
    *But..but..but..BIG NUMBERS.

  401. 401
    rich says:

    drc466 – you seem to not understand information.

    what are the information content of these:

    1) “Starting point”

    2) “Starting point Starting point”

    3) “Starting point Starting pint”

    4) “Starting point Stating pints”

    Thanks in advance.

  402. 402
    keith s says:

    drc466,

    Barry is correct – your “ticking bomb” is nothing more than one huge unsubstantiated assertion.

    Um, no. I substantiate it in the OP and in the comments. Can you point to a specific flaw in my argument?

    You basically state that the evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that it is undeniable…

    It is overwhelming, but interestingly, my argument would be fatal to ID even if common descent were not true. It’s not just that ID has less than a one in a trillion chance of being correct, compared to unguided evolution. It has a less than one in a trillion chance of being correct, period.

    The biggest weakness in your “bomb” is that it doesn’t address Barry’s OP – it fails to provide any evidence that natural processes can innovate:

    Sure it does. The argument shows that however life came to be as it is today, it was not by design. You’re welcome to point out a flaw in my argument, if you can find one.

    The “barrier” that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution is the simple fact that you cannot “climb Mount Improbable” if the only direction you can move is sideways or down!

    Your barrier is imaginary. Otherwise, why would the evidence look exactly — and I mean exactly, with better than one in a trillion accuracy — like it would if unguided evolution were operating, and not at all like what you would expect if ID were true?

    Have you read the comments in my TSZ thread? I go into some detail about this.

    For a refutation of your imaginary barrier, see this other thread at TSZ.

  403. 403
    Mung says:

    Upright BiPed:

    I guess I can assume there is no response forthcoming, and that the physical conditions required to actually organize the first cell on earth are simply assumed for obvious reasons.

    You could assume that, but isn’t it more fun to offer it as a prediction of ID and to sit back and watch it be fulfilled?

  404. 404
    Joe says:

    keiths’ “argument” has been shown to be full of nonsense ad misrepresentations. That is the flaw, keiths.

    It is nothing but one long evidence-twisting rant. Just another bald declaration.

    But he is obviously proud of it.

  405. 405
    Alan Fox says:

    Dionisio writes:

    349 rich

    Is that the best you can offer?

    Wanna give it another try?

    Go ahead!

    Not sure what you have in mind. I thought Uncommon Descent was the last bastion of the “Intelligent Design” movement. I’m here to find out if there is a scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” worth the name. You and some others seem fixated on the perceived inadequacies of evolutionary theory. Criticism of theories and hypotheses is fine, and I would like to have the opportunity to evaluate the “Intelligent Design” theory.

    CSI? Irreducible complexity? It’s all about what evolution cannot achieve. What’s “Intelligent Design”‘s explanation of life’s diversity?

  406. 406
    rich says:

    Joe, can you point to a specific flaw in Keiths’ argument?

  407. 407
    keith s says:

    ppolish,

    Keith, seems no one is bothering to defuse your bomb.

    That’s because they — and you — can’t do it.

    Let us know if it explodes. Boom.

    It actually has exploded, and most of you are opting for option three:

    Or will you allow it to explode, and then stagger out of the smoke, dazed and singed like Wile E. Coyote, while insisting that there was no explosion at all?

  408. 408
    Dionisio says:

    389 keith s

    Is that the best you can offer?

    Wanna give it another try?

    Go ahead!

    🙂

  409. 409
    Mung says:

    Upright BiPed:

    So, what is that principle that supports your belief?

    It it be not so then my beliefs are false. Therefore, it must be so. Could you ask for a stronger more fundamental principle of belief?

  410. 410
  411. 411
    rich says:

    Keiths, the Iraqi information minister (“Baghdad Bob”) would be a better analogy than Wile E. Coyote, I think.

  412. 412
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Why isn’t chemistry sufficient?

    That is proof rich is ignorant of science. As if we needed more evidence.

    What is the evidence that chemistry is sufficient, rich? All your position has are speculations based on the requirement of a purely chemical evolution of the system.

    Grow up. And if you aren’t qualified to defend evolutionism then it is a very safe bet you aren’t qualified to criticize ID. And you have proven that you are not qualified to do anything beyond badger people.

    Nice job

  413. 413
    ppolish says:

    Anyone else enjoying Dembski’s new book “Being as Communion”? Spoiler Alert, chapter 11 ends with “With no disrespect for mythology, matter is a myth”. With a footnote “I mean that matter is a myth quite literally, …”

    Boom. Big Bomb on the Materialists.

  414. 414
    keith s says:

    Mung,

    I told people where they could go to find your arguments defused. If you want to say you called my bluff and I folded I certainly can’t stop you.

    You told people to read the thread. Why not link to the specific comments in which my argument is “defused”?

    You do have some specific comments in mind, don’t you?

  415. 415
    Dionisio says:

    383 Alan Fox

    Is that the best you can offer?

    Wanna give it another try?

    Go ahead!

    🙂

  416. 416
    Mung says:

    Thorton @ 355:

    350+ posts in, not one brave IDer has stepped up to provide any CSI calculations or methodology.

    I guess we can flush the “CSI” turd down the swirly bowl.

    lol

    From now on when I want to be sure Thornton sees a post of mine I know where to send it!

  417. 417
    keith s says:

    rich,

    Keiths, the Iraqi information minister (“Baghdad Bob”) would be a better analogy than Wile E. Coyote, I think.

    True, but Baghdad Bob lacks Wile E. Coyote’s direct link to the malevolent supernatural.

    🙂

  418. 418
    Mung says:

    rich @ 394:

    Mung, I obviously don’t want to to play “whack a mole” with gaps in evolutionary theory.

    I appreciate there are several steps you may find insurmountable, but I obviously don’t want to keep bouncing between them.

    You appear to have me confused with someone else.

  419. 419
    Mung says:

    Axel, don’t forget Kantian Naturalist.

  420. 420
    Mung says:

    rich:

    drc466 – you seem to not understand information.

    what are the information content of these:

    rich – you seem to not understand information.

    What leads you to believe that there is any “information content” at all in your examples?

  421. 421
    Mung says:

    ppolish:

    Anyone else enjoying Dembski’s new book “Being as Communion”?

    Yep. I’m on chapter 10.

  422. 422
    rich says:

    Actually Mung, I’m acutely aware of the difference between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’, something that escapes many IDists.

  423. 423
    Dionisio says:

    395 Axel

    Hilarious! A complete madhouse. They’re back in force, mob-handed.

    Yes, in a way it’s kind of fun, but in the long run it could be a waste of time if we don’t learn to time the exit well lest we get dragged down to the bottom of a senseless unproductive discussion that leads nowhere. The only persuasive argument could be to do it for the sake of the lurkers and onlookers. But even that argument loses strength if this nonsense lasts too long.
    Anyway, I’m enjoying a little time off these days, while transitioning to a new more difficult and time consuming phase in the project I’m working on, which could keep me so busy and tied up, that I won’t find much time to be back here.
    Have a good weekend!

  424. 424
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    You told people to read the thread. Why not link to the specific comments in which my argument is “defused”?

    Probably for the same reason you don’t provide the links to each and every specific comment you make in the thread where you try to fill in the gaping holes left by the bomb that went off in your OP.

    It’s funny, really. The fuse falls off your bomb, you try to stick it back on. It falls off again, you try to stick it back on. And you think this comedy ought to be of interest to people here at UD why?

    Let me tell everyone how it ends, as is completely predictable from the nature of the skit. The fuse of course is still burning the entire time and each time you try to stick it back on the bomb it is shorter than the last time. Finally you attach it and the inevitable happens, the bomb goes off in your face. Everyone gets a good laugh. Not because it’s a tragedy, but because no one believe the bomb is real. You come away unscathed. But only because there was no real bomb.

    If you try to make the same argument here at UD that you attempted there at “the skeptical zone” you won’t come away unscathed. I am sure someone will be happy to guest post for you.

  425. 425
    Mung says:

    rich:

    Actually Mung, I’m acutely aware of the difference between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’, something that escapes many IDists.

    What’s meaning got to do with it?

    I asked you a simple question, to which you give, at best, a cryptic answer.

    rich: what are the information content of these

    Mung: What leads you to believe that there is any “information content” at all in your examples?

    Are you admitting that your examples have no “information content” and you were just trolling?

    If you believe they do have “information content” then you should be able to say why, and in what sense. Assuming you actually understand information.

    rich: drc466 – you seem to not understand information.

    pot. kettle. …

  426. 426
    Querius says:

    Dionisio, kairosfocus, Andre, Joe, Barry, Axel, Mung, wd400 (!) and others,

    After forcing myself to read through the derogatory mostly content–free posts attacking you all, most of which could have been produced by a “blather bot” of the attack variety, I would suggest that your effort is completely wasted.

    For example, when you’re confronted by completely unsupported assertions and you beg for actual information, you’re told:

    . . . science doesn’t know every detail of every step for things that happened over a billion years ago.

    Not every detail? Yah think? And the arrogant assumption is that no one here knows anything about science. An honest contributor would say that science is essentially CLUELESS about what was going on over a billion years ago.

    And here Andre is going for the ‘constant attack on evolution’ gambit. No level of detail will be enough- but don’t ask him about ID, because substance precedes detail, and ID doesn’t have that.

    This in the face of receiving NO SUPPORTING LOGIC OR EVIDENCE from his accuser. Pathetic!

    The one thing we know for sure is that designed things are not produced by algorithms.

    The person who wrote this is CLUELESS about software! Why bother arguing with such a person?

    How do IDists explain the spectacular lack of examples? It is not helping them.

    Another completely unsupported assertion. Fine why not just reply that Darwinism is a completely failed science that is spectacularly devoid of the slighted shred of evidence? The two statements are logically equivalent.

    Wd400, tried to reason with someone that

    A number is computable if it can be calculated with arbitrary precision. That’s true of pi. Pi, like most numbers, can’t be expressed as finite decimal expansion, but that’s not related to its computability.

    The poster never answered my earlier question about where he/she/it thought the digits of Pi (which they originally referred to as PIE) came from in that case. No answer. Wd400, who will undoubtedly kick me in the teeth to avoid any acknowledgement from an ID leper like me, was completely ignored until the poster looked it up somewhere and moved the goalposts by saying that he/she/it meant to say they meant transcendental rather than non-computable. Oh dear oh dear.

    And Dionisio repeatedly asked for his questions to be answered in many posts, but was repeatedly ignored.

    Frankly, the responses we’re receiving are noise, which seems be have the goal of wasting as much of our time as possible, drowning out any discussion with 200-300 comments!

    Here’s a suggestion. Why not respond only to posts that have some education and logic behind them rather than the “Hitler believed in Intelligent Design” variety?

    -Q

  427. 427
    rich says:

    Friday night!

    Have a good weekend, all.

  428. 428
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Wd400 says

    (most real numbers are transcendental, that doesn’t make them any less real).

    I say,

    My point exactly. They are objective the inferences drawn from them are reliable yet they can not be arrived at using a algorithm.

    You say,

    I really don’t know what point you are making by claiming CSI is a non-commutable function,

    I say,

    Only this.

    CSI by definition can not be exhaustively calculated by means of an algorithm. It is never the less real objective and and useful just like Pi.

    In fact I would go so far as to say that Pi is an example of CSI.

    I think this is a profound incite as it not only nullifies most of the anti ID arguments I’ve encountered but points to cool ways to move the discussion forward and even makes CSI a useful concept for scientific research.

    It even makes ID acceptable to Platonists who are not Theists

    Hope to get into all of that as soon as I am confident that my argument is being understood

    You say,

    though I suspect its based on similar confusion as the one you’ve made with pi.

    I say

    no confusion just maybe a maybe a mistaken assumption that my argument would be read with a view to my intent and my terms be understood according informal definitions instead of looking for semantical lupoles.

    I’ll try keep that in mind in the future

    peace

  429. 429
    RDFish says:

    Hi Barry and Everybody Else,

    You have been presented with bomb after bomb of course – you’re just too shell-shocked to realize it 🙂

    The biggest bomb is the one you are most afraid to deal with: Even if you prove that evolutionary theory and abiogenesis can’t begin to account for the biological systems we observe (and I believe that to be case as well), that does not tell you anything about what was the actual cause.

    ID says “Maybe extra-terrestrial life forms with human-like mental and physical abilities were responsible!” But that is a terrible hypothesis for a number of reasons.

    ID says “Maybe something that isn’t even a life form at all, but still has human-like mental and physical abilities was responsible!”. But that is an even worse hypothesis, since there is not a shred of evidence that anything such as that has ever existed, nor can anyone begin to suggest how something without a complex physical body could possibly process information and manipulate matter.

    Of course there are other ideas that likewise fail as empirically supported theories of origins. For example, Stuart Kauffman believes that “Self-organizational principles are responsible!” But of course he fails to show how any set of self-organizational effects could even come close to producing the sort of mechanisms we observe in biology.

    James Shapiro says “Natural Genetic Engineering!” But he too doesn’t even begin to show how these mechanisms could ever produce complex biological mechanisms, much less the first living systems.

    Thomas Nagel says “Natural Teleology”, but after reading his book I’ve concluded that neither of us understand what he actually means by that.

    The only correct answer when it comes to scientific theories of the origin of living things is “WE DO NOT KNOW”. It is hilarious and sad at the same time to watch as people posture endlessly to deny this obvious truth.

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  430. 430
    wd400 says:

    CSI by definition can not be exhaustively calculated by means of an algorithm.

    No one is asking you to calculate the number such that is doesn’t repeat! Just define it, and estimate it for some biological thing.

  431. 431
    keith s says:

    Mung,

    If you try to make the same argument here at UD that you attempted there at “the skeptical zone” you won’t come away unscathed.

    I am making the same argument here, and no one — least of all you — has put a dent in it.

    Give it a try, Mung. Describe a specific problem with my argument, and respond to my counterarguments. An actual debate, instead of mere mudslinging. It would be a new experience for you, and very educational.

    Mung:

    I am sure someone will be happy to guest post for you.

    Great idea! How about it, Barry?

  432. 432
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Hey Aiguy,

    Just wanted to thank you. It’s partially my discussions with you that lead to my current rabbit trail.

    I hope we get the chance kick it around. I’m curious to what you would think of it

    Thanks

    peace

  433. 433
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    WD400 said,

    No one is asking you to calculate the number such that is doesn’t repeat! Just define it, and estimate it for some biological thing.

    I say,

    definition……… CSI=NCF

    Estimation for the Bacterial Flagellum ….. >0
    That is sufficient resolution to exclude an algorithmic origin.

    peace

  434. 434
    RDFish says:

    Hey Fifthmonarchyman,

    Nice to see you. Sure, what is your current rabbit trail?

    Cheers,
    RDFish/AIGuy

  435. 435
    Dionisio says:

    426 Querius

    Excellent observations! Thank you for sharing them with the rest of us.

    I wish you all -including our interlocutors (why not?)- a wonderful weekend. To some of us, depending on where on this planet we are, it’s already Saturday, to others Friday is not over yet. But to all, without exception, time is passing by, leaving its marks on everything, including ourselves. Our beloved doctor GP would say IL TEMPO VOLA. Therefore we should be cautious to use it wisely.

    I don’t remember when I started to post comments here in this blog, but think it wasn’t that long ago. I don’t know any of you personally, unless you are one of my neighbors using a pseudonym.

    However, somehow just reading what some of you have written here in this blog, I have learned to appreciate the enormous diversity of personalities and worldview positions that we can encounter in this world. Also, some of you are impressively clever and well educated. I have definitely learned a few things from reading what some of you wrote, although in many occasions the topics were above my pay grade and your vocabulary much richer than mine.

    And maybe I have started to like some of you, meaning that I could probably have more enjoyable one-on-one conversations on serious topics with some of you, than I could have with some of my relatives and friends. Because, regardless of the differences between our belief systems and worldview positions, some of us here have in common a tremendous desire to learn more about the ultimate reality. One can tell right away that some of you here are passionate about that.

    In my case, what started as curiosity, gradually turned into fascination, and eventually became an irresistible obsession. 🙂

    Perhaps someday I will have the pleasure to meet personally and chat with some of you. But regardless of whether that happens or not, I pray for you.

    May God bless you.

    🙂

  436. 436
    Box says:

    Keith’s bomb:

    Keith s: And because gradual common descent predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a ‘common designer’, it is literally not just millions, or billions, but trillions of times better at explaining the evidence.

    Summary:

    premise 1: we observe X
    premise 2: Darwinism predicts X
    premise 3: A creator can produce X but also trillions of other alternatives to X

    Conclusion: Darwinism is trillions of times better at explaining X.

    The problems:

    The first problem with this argument is that in order for Darwinism to be a better explanation it has to be shown that unguided evolution can actually produce X; the very thing that Barry is asking for – IOW natural forces creating Orgel’s CSI.
    Secondly, ID doesn’t hold to have knowledge of the intelligent designer. He/she/it/they (?) may have many options or only one. We have no way of knowing. ID is about design detection, not about the designer (and its options).
    Lastly, it seems counter-intuitive to me, that the alleged creative versatility of a designer has such a negative effect on the likelihood of being a cause.

  437. 437
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    I am making the same argument here, and no one — least of all you — has put a dent in it.

    You’ve not made an argument here, you’ve merely asserted that you have made an abominable argument elsewhere that you think people here ought to take seriously.

    keiths:

    An actual debate, instead of mere mudslinging. It would be a new experience for you, and very educational.

    An actual debate. great! Is that why you post your “bombs” at TSZ?

  438. 438
    Box says:

    With bombs like these, who needs flowers?

  439. 439
    tjguy says:

    Alan @32

    Evolutionary theory proposes that natural selection (or if you like environmental design) results in differential survival of alleles (the source of variation being mutation, duplication, meiotic shuffling etc). There is no need for evolution to “find” all functional proteins. “Just good enough” to survive is all that is needed.

    “Proposes” is the key word here, Alan.

    And remember there is a vast unknown number of protein sequences that do not exist in nature but we can’t assume that there is not also a vast subset of potentially functional proteins still waiting to be stumbled upon by the rinse-and-repeat of variation and selection.

    “Assume” is the key word here, Alan. Neither can you assume that there IS a vast subset of potentially functional proteins still waiting to be discovered. Assumption is not science.

    See, both sides have the same problem here. We are dealing with history and unknowns. Making proposals is fine, but they need to be testable. Can you test your proposal?

    Making assumptions is NOT fine in real science. True, it is in historical science because that is all we can do, given our limitations, but this shows the problems with historical science. It is built upon unprovable assumptions and this puts the whole thing in question if you ask me.

    WJMs summary is indeed a straw man.

    Hmm. Because evolution “proposes” things and “assumes” things?

    Not in my book.

  440. 440
    bornagain77 says:

    a few notes refuting Keith s ‘trillions of times better’ claim:

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html

    Does Natural Selection Leave “Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome”? More Problems with Matzke’s Critique of Darwin’s Doubt – Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
    Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75171.html

    The following article gives an overview of many problems with the statistical method that Theobald used to try to establish ‘statistical significance’ for common ancestry;

    Scientific method: Statistical errors – P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. – Regina Nuzzo – 12 February 2014
    Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can’t,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,,
    “Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then ‘laws’ handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They’re actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,,
    One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,,
    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    That is hardly a statisitical method that would inspire confidence in a person, much less ground the ‘trillions of times better’ claim that keith s is trying to make. Moreover,,,

    Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism – May 14, 2013
    Excerpt: In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierachies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....darwinism/

    Evolution Professor: “Biological Designs Fall Into a Nested Hierarchy” – May 14, 2014
    Excerpt: phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,,
    And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. Velasco’s claim is typical. For example, Richard Dawkins explained that gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....signs.html

    Two-faced Nick Matzke – July 20, 2013
    Excerpt: When we build the hierarchical grouping purely on taxonomy, the groupings look sensible and elegant.
    Darwinism instead distorts all this by putting mammals and birds as a subgroup of fish. Whereas an unprejudiced look at the characters suggests fish are a sister group of mammals not the parent! ,,,
    Modern phylogenetic methods allow Darwinists to prejudicially synthesize a bogus statistical case that one group is ancestral to another.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ck-matzke/

    Cladograms, though often used by Darwinists to try to depict a ‘bottom up’ branching tree pattern in the fossil record, turn out to be of little resemblance to the real world. David Berlinski eloquently reveals the abuse of cladistics, (i.e. the fit, damn you fit method), by Darwinists in the following article:

    A One Man Clade – David Berlinski July 18, 2013
    Excerpt: Had Stephen Meyer better appreciated the tools of modern cladistics, Nick Matzke believes, he would not have drawn the conclusions that he did in his book Darwin’s Doubt, or argued as he had. Meyer is in this regard hardly alone. It would seem that Stephen Jay Gould was just slightly too thick to have appreciated, and the eminent paleontologist James Valentine just slightly too old to have acquired, the methods that Matzke, writing at Panda’s Thumb, is disposed to champion. Should Valentine be appointed to Matzke’s dissertation committee at UC Berkeley, we at Discovery Institute will be pleased to offer uninterrupted prayers on his behalf. We can offer no assurance of success, of course, but then again, when it comes to cladistic methods, neither can Matzke..
    ,,,The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.

    Tight fit, major fail.7

    No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

  441. 441
    wd400 says:

    I say,

    definition……… CSI=NCF

    Estimation for the Bacterial Flagellum ….. >0
    That is sufficient resolution to exclude an algorithmic origin.

    peace

    This is not even wrong, I’m afraid.

  442. 442
    bornagain77 says:

    The abuse of cladistics by Darwinists is further exposed here by Dr. Meyer;

    “In order to compensate for missing fossils, we have to postulate more missing fossils. So I don’t think that this really solves the problem of the missing fossils. I think it actually accentuates it.”
    Stephen Meyer

    Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer’s Argument for Intelligent Design
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY2B76JbMQ4
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZWw18b3nHo
    Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 3 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XappzJh1k

    As to what the fossil record actually looks like, away from the imaginary dotted lines on paper that Darwinists draw in their cladograms, the actual fossil record reveals a ‘sudden’ top down pattern of ‘disparity preceding diversity’ instead of the bottom up pattern of gradually accumulating changes envisioned by Darwinists.

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity – Casey Luskin – February 4, 2014
    Excerpt: “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81911.html

    Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found in the fossil record after it as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
    Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

  443. 443
    drc466 says:

    drc466 @399

    “The Bomb” is simple – show physical evidence of the unguided, materialistic generation of new genes, proteins, structures, etc.

    rich @401: Look – squirrel!
    keith s @403: Look – tree!

    rich: you seem to not understand “physical”. Or “evidence”. Are you arguing that there is a laboratory experiment out there that shows that a duplicated gene mutation created a novel function or feature not previously extant in the original organism? Citation please.

    keith s: Since you seem determined to push the point, let me point out just one easily-identified flaw in your “bomb”. In the comments to your post, you claim:

    On the other hand, a process (e.g. evolution) that involves descent with (gradual) modification and primarily vertical inheritance will produce an objective nested hierarchy. In other words, you will get identical (or highly congruent) trees when you look at different data sets (such as morphological and molecular data), regardless of the order in which you rank the distinguishing traits.

    This is one example of what I referred to as an “unsubstantiated assertion”. If what you say here is true, then it should be a simple exercise for you to point me to the identical trees that you claim exist. Secondly, for each tree that exists, there should be documentation for which “data sets” were used. Third, the trees that you provide should be consistent over time – you shouldn’t see substantial change year over year as new genetic information comes to light, or as precedence is changed to different sets of morphological and molecular characteristics.
    I suggest you check out the evolution-friendly site wikipedia (you may have heard of it) to see what they think of your assertion that “you will get identical (or highly congruent) trees when you look at different data sets”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree. In particular, some of the references are highly educational. Cladistics is a highly contentious field that has never yet produced a consensus “tree of life”, let alone multiple trees in agreement based on different data sets.

    All of which is beside the point. Putting a bat near a rodent on a chart based on maximum parsimony doesn’t qualify as empirical evidence that unguided, materialistic processes can create wings.

    I think it’s safe to say at this point that no physical evidence or laboratory experiment showing unguided processes creating new function is forthcoming. How disappointing.

    (P.S. I see BA77 has posted a far better takedown of the objective nested heirarchy than I).

  444. 444
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Aiguy,

    long story

    Scroll up to 98 for a glimpse.

    Basically it is the observation that CSI is objectively found in lots of things not produced by humans.

    cool things like Pi the Golden Ratio and consciousnesses.

    Once we can agree that these diverse things are not computable algorithmically we can generalize as to what if any feature(s) they share.

    Hint it’s complex and it corresponds to a specification. In fact it is synonymous with “non-computable”

    It’s only natural to ask ourselves if these noncontroversial non-computable things have anything in common with features in biology or cosmology.

    The design inference is not as controversial as long as we define it as the simply the realization that a particular phenomena can not be arrived at algorithmically be it Pi or the BF.

    Of course we IDers will point out that unthinking algorithms are simply the definitional opposite of intelligent agents.

    Now however we are beginning to see that claim demonstrated scientifically

    Google “nonlossy integrated information” to see what I mean

    peace

  445. 445
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    WD400 said

    This is not even wrong, I’m afraid.

    I say

    I’m all ears but you will have to be more specific

  446. 446
    wd400 says:

    I think you’ve already demonstrated you have no idea what you are talking, but “not even wrong” I mean the post above is not actually saying anything.

  447. 447
    tjguy says:

    Question: How do we know there is a “SCIENTIFIC” answer to the origin and evolution of life?

    I’ll answer. We don’t know. We just ASSUME there is!

    Here we are dealing with a worldview issue. No one knows the answer to that question. It is not a question that science can answer.

    Evolutionists simply believe/assume there is a natural explanation and seek to find it. That is what science does. I have no problem with science looking for a natural explanation, but limiting all answers only to natural explanations is where I have a problem.

    When it comes to origins, remember, no one was there. No one saw what happened. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be tested. We are outside the realm of science and trying to figure out what happened must involve assumptions which heightens the possibility of a mistake. That means that dogmatic claims by scientists about what happened in the past are foolish and dangerous.

    For instance, if a supernatural Creator did create the universe and life as well, as many people believe, there could be no “scientific” explanation(as 21st century scientists now define the word “science”) for the origin of life. And the theory of evolution would naturally be full of gaps!

    I just think that we need to take a step back and admit that there are certain things that we cannot “know”. That should keep us all a bit more humble.

    Alan @ 65

    Barry asks;

    Is the current evolutionary paradigm supportable without question begging metaphysical assumptions being imposed on the data?

    If you mean “are there gaps in the theory” then of course you are correct. But at least there is a theory. And what evidence we have so far does not disprove the theory. But I can’t say the same of ID theory as there doesn’t seem to be one. Or at least not one that has entailments or makes testable predictions.

    Barry asks a great question here! And I don’t think you understood his question, but your answer points out another problem with evolution.

    There are many gaps in the theory. Your response is

    Well, at least there is a theory!”

    I’m not impressed Alan! My answer to that is “SO WHAT IF YOU HAVE A THEORY” It might be a bad theory. Just because you have a theory, does that mean we all need to accept it as gospel truth? Is the best out of 10 bad theories the right one simply because it is better than the other 9 which are worse? How scientific is that?! Whether ID has what you would call a theory or not, is not my point. Why should we believe YOUR theory if it is full of holes? You can’t really test it. You can’t really falsify it. Yet, you continually find things that surprise you, things that your theory would not predict. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  448. 448
    bornagain77 says:

    fyi wd400, the man who originated the saying ‘It is not even wrong’ had this to say about Darwinism:

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

  449. 449
    bornagain77 says:

    fifthmonarchyman, in case you are not familiar with wd400’s typical modus operandi, it is to state anyone showing him to wrong, no matter how clearly they do it, ‘just doesn’t understand evolution’

  450. 450
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    that is a little harsh.

    care to explain.

    If we stipulate that Complex Specified information is non-computable any amount of CSI what so ever is sufficient to rule out algorithmic origin is it not?

    To demonstrate that my estimate is incorrect all you have to do is point to an algorithm that will account for the origin of the BF.

    Think about this from the perspective of other assumed non-computable things.

    To prove that e is computable you need only to produce the algorithm. until you do we can estimate it’s noncomputableness (CSI)at >0

    peace

  451. 451
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich, I cannot keep up with multiplecstreams just now but will note, have you noticed that functionally specific complex organisation is primsary, and info is associated? Have you examined an exploded view assembly diagram for say a fishing reel? Do you think that’s not a specification that has functional implications? Are you aware it can be reduced to an AutoCAD file, thus a string structure with code conventions? Which string structure is what we see with D/RNA and also with text strings, source code, object code, audio files, video files etc etc etc? As in it is discussion on functionally specific strings that is WLOG? In short, you have set up and knocked over yet another strawman in the teeth of abundant information to the contrary. The exchanges above and in parallel threads therefore highlight one thing: we are seeing a wave of selective hyperskepticism and willful strawman tactics, not any genuine meeting of minds. The best we can do is give enough for onlookers to see what is going on. KF

  452. 452
    wd400 says:

    5th,

    You can stipulate what you want, but if you want to apply CSI to a biological problem you have to define it. Saying CSI is (the output of?) and uncomputable function doesn’t define it (there are tonnes of non-computable functions).

    If you define CSI, show biology has CSI and prove that CSI can’t be produced by any algorithm then you might have something. Just repeatedl saying CSI = NCF doesn’t quite make that cut (or, in fact, make sense).

  453. 453
    BM40 says:

    I may be wrong but my impression is that neither Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Axe, Luskin, Wells nor any other leading ID proponent ever used the term or even applied this FSCO/I Kairosfocus is trying to put forward. Seemingly, I doesn’t help their case because otherwise they would have adopted it showed up around 2011. Even in the comments at UD there are only very few others beside Kairosfocus who ever used the term.

  454. 454
    Thorton says:

    drc466

    Are you arguing that there is a laboratory experiment out there that shows that a duplicated gene mutation created a novel function or feature not previously extant in the original organism? Citation please.

    It’s been empirically observed to happen.

    Extensive Local Gene Duplication and Functional Divergence among Paralogs in Atlantic Salmon
    Warren et al
    Genome Biology and Evolution 6 (7): 1790-1805. June 19, 2014

    Abstract: genome, enabling individuals to exploit diverse and variable environments. A prevailing hypothesis is that such adaptation has been favored by gene duplication events, which generate redundant genomic material that may evolve divergent functions. Vertebrate examples of recent whole-genome duplications are sparse although one example is the salmonids, which have undergone a whole-genome duplication event within the last 100 Myr. The life-cycle of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, depends on the ability to produce alternating phenotypes from the same genome, to facilitate migration and maintain its anadromous life history. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that genome-wide and local gene duplication events have contributed to the salmonid adaptation. We used high-throughput sequencing to characterize the transcriptomes of three key organs involved in regulating migration in S. salar: Brain, pituitary, and olfactory epithelium. We identified over 10,000 undescribed S. salar sequences and designed an analytic workflow to distinguish between paralogs originating from local gene duplication events or from whole-genome duplication events. These data reveal that substantial local gene duplications took place shortly after the whole-genome duplication event. Many of the identified paralog pairs have either diverged in function or become noncoding. Future functional genomics studies will reveal to what extent this rich source of divergence in genetic sequence is likely to have facilitated the evolution of extreme phenotypic plasticity required for an anadromous life-cycle.

    Go ahead and make yourself like an even bigger ignorant fool by bawling “but but but they’re still fish!!”

  455. 455
    keith s says:

    Mung,

    As we both know, the reason you won’t point out a flaw in my argument is because you can’t find one, and you’re afraid of what would happen if you tried.

    Step aside and let braver folks like Box and drc466 fight your battle for you.

  456. 456
    gpuccio says:

    Alan Fox at #285:

    Luckily, truth remains the same, and does not depend on the fashions which determine the attention of men 🙂

  457. 457
    gpuccio says:

    wd400:

    You say (to 5th):

    “if you want to apply CSI to a biological problem you have to define it”

    I believe I have defined it many times. What’s the problem? CSI can be defined and can be calculated. In biological systems.

  458. 458
    keith s says:

    Box,

    Summary:

    premise 1: we observe X
    premise 2: Darwinism predicts X
    premise 3: A creator can produce X but also trillions of other alternatives to X

    Conclusion: Darwinism is trillions of times better at explaining X.

    That’s a pretty good summary. Thank you for making the effort to understand what I am arguing (and for being brave enough to engage it, unlike Barry). I would just add that premise 3 applies not only to a creator but also to a putative designer who guides evolution.

    The problems:

    The first problem with this argument is that in order for Darwinism to be a better explanation it has to be shown that unguided evolution can actually produce X; the very thing that Barry is asking for – IOW natural forces creating Orgel’s CSI.

    That’s actually not true. What we have are two competing hypotheses:

    1) the diversity of life on earth is due to design; versus
    2) the diversity of life on earth is due to unguided evolution.

    The question is, which of these hypotheses fits the evidence better? The way to find out is to assume the truth of each hypothesis in turn, determine what it entails, and then compare the entailments to the evidence to see which hypothesis is the better fit.

    First we assume the truth of design. If design is correct, then there are zillions of possibilities, and consilient genetic and morphological hierarchies are vanishingly unlikely since they comprise less than one trillionth of the possibilities.

    Next we assume the truth of unguided evolution. In that case, we do expect to see consilient hierarchies, and our prediction is confirmed.

    If a hypothesis fits the evidence a trillion times better than its competitor, then it is hands down the better hypothesis.

    Now, you might object that if it turns out that evolution definitely cannot produce Orgel’s specified complexity (henceforth ‘OSC’), then ID is the better hypothesis after all. That’s true, but it’s up to you to demonstrate that evolution cannot produce OSC. I’ve already demonstrated that it is more than a trillion times likelier that it can produce OSC.

    Secondly, ID doesn’t hold to have knowledge of the intelligent designer.

    Neither do I, which is why I make no assumptions about what the designer is trying to accomplish or what his/her/its capabilities are. All possibilities are open.

    Lastly, it seems counter-intuitive to me, that the alleged creative versatility of a designer has such a negative effect on the likelihood of being a cause.

    You’re looking at it backwards. The question isn’t “If a designer exists, could it be a cause?” It’s “Given that something caused this, how likely is it that the cause was a designer?” The answer is, “Not likely at all.”

  459. 459
    keith s says:

    drc466,

    In the comments to your post, you claim:

    On the other hand, a process (e.g. evolution) that involves descent with (gradual) modification and primarily vertical inheritance will produce an objective nested hierarchy. In other words, you will get identical (or highly congruent) trees when you look at different data sets (such as morphological and molecular data), regardless of the order in which you rank the distinguishing traits.

    This is one example of what I referred to as an “unsubstantiated assertion”. If what you say here is true, then it should be a simple exercise for you to point me to the identical trees that you claim exist. Secondly, for each tree that exists, there should be documentation for which “data sets” were used. Third, the trees that you provide should be consistent over time – you shouldn’t see substantial change year over year as new genetic information comes to light, or as precedence is changed to different sets of morphological and molecular characteristics.

    See this.

    I suggest you check out the evolution-friendly site wikipedia (you may have heard of it) to see what they think of your assertion that “you will get identical (or highly congruent) trees when you look at different data sets”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree.

    Note the words “or highly congruent”, and then refer to Theobald again.

    In particular, some of the references are highly educational. Cladistics is a highly contentious field that has never yet produced a consensus “tree of life”, let alone multiple trees in agreement based on different data sets.

    It has produced a consensus tree. The molecular and morphological trees of the 30 major taxa match to an astounding accuracy of better than 1 in 10^38.

    Unguided evolution blows ID out of the water.

  460. 460
    keith s says:

    bornagain77,

    You haven’t changed a bit in my absence. Still spamming threads with irrelevant cut-and-paste jobs because you don’t understand the topics being discussed and aren’t able to make a coherent argument in your own words.

    Case in point: Your spam about p-values above is entirely irrelevant to my argument, because the “one in trillions” claim has nothing to do with p-values. It’s based on the number of possible trees involving the 30 major taxa.

    It appears that you saw the word “statistics” in that article and blindly latched onto it despite having no idea whether it was relevant.

    You’re not helping the ID cause with these misguided spamfests.

  461. 461
    gpuccio says:

    keith s:

    You haven’t changed a bit in your absence. Still making the same irrational and methodologically wrong argument… 🙂

    Maybe it’s fine that we stick so loyally to our own obsessions. But the quality of our obsessions certainly defines us.

  462. 462
    gpuccio says:

    KF:

    I have read the Bartlett article you referenced at #228. Very interesting indeed!

    In part it’s the Penrose argument, I believe, but the conclusions are different.

    I really believe that the Godel theorem and its consequences strongly point to the transcendental nature of human cognition.

    The transcendental nature of the cognitive “I” is clearly shown in its constant ability to shift to a “meta” level in respect to its own mental processes. That, IMO, the true origin of the “Turing oracles”, the true explanation of how human cognition can account for non computable results. The cognitive I can, at any moment, use a system of mental processes, and at the same time go “above” that system, and observe it. The “metalevel” is the origin of a new perspective, of new axioms, of new possibilities. Each time.

    That’s why consciousness has unique properties and experiences, which cannot even be defined in computable terms: meaning, purpose, free will are its pure modalities, transcendental in nature and completely non algorithmic. Design is the unique manifestation of those modalities.

    That’s why no computation, no non conscious system, can ever explain design. And complex designed objects, which can be definitely distinguished from random pseudo design by their specified complexity, allow a safe and absolutely credible scientific inference of a conscious designer.

    It’s as simple as that.

  463. 463
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    In light of your supposed refutation of design. It seems to me that you gave not really thought it through. You seem to ignore common design. Why us that? Also what’s up with a designer could have used trillions of possible configurations. Seems to me you know something about design then but end up denying it……

    so when will you explain PCD to me in a Darwin Ian framework. …. How did a unguided process building a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening?

  464. 464
    Andre says:

    Auto correct suck. This is a truth statement

  465. 465
    the bystander says:

    kieth S @459 Perhaps you need to read the assumptions made by cladists ?:

    cited from berkeley.edu
    What assumptions do cladists make?

    There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

    Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.
    There is a bifurcating pattern of cladogenesis.
    Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.

    The first assumption is a general assumption made for all evolutionary biology. It essentially means that life arose on earth only once, and therefore all organisms are related in some way or other. Because of this, we can take any collection of organisms and determine a meaningful pattern of relationships, provided we have the right kind of information. Again, the assumption states that all the diversity of life on earth has been produced through the reproduction of existing organisms.

    The second assumption is perhaps the most controversial; that is, that new kinds of organisms may arise when existing species or populations divide into exactly two groups. There are many biologists who hold that multiple new lineages can arise from a single originating population at the same time, or near enough in time to be indistinguishable from such an event. While this model could conceivably occur, it is not currently known how often this has actually happened. The other objection raised against this assumption is the possibility of interbreeding between distinct groups. This, however, is a general problem of reconstructing evolutionary history, and although it cannot currently be handled well by cladistic methods, no other system has yet been devised which accounts for it.

    The final assumption, that characteristics of organisms change over time, is the most important assumption in cladistics. It is only when characteristics change that we are able to recognize different lineages or groups. The convention is to call the “original” state of the characteristic plesiomorphic and the “changed” state apomorphic. The terms “primitive” and “derived” have also been used for these states, but they are often avoided by cladists, since those terms have been much abused in the past.

  466. 466
    Box says:

    Keiths Bomb (part 2)

    Summary of Keith s bomb:

    premise 1: we observe X
    premise 2: Darwinism predicts X
    premise 3: A creator can produce X but also trillions alternatives to X
    Conclusion: Darwinism is trillions of times better at explaining X.

    Box #436: The first problem with this argument is that in order for Darwinism to be a better explanation it has to be shown that unguided evolution can actually produce X; the very thing that Barry is asking for – IOW natural forces creating Orgel’s CSI.

    Keith s #458: That’s actually not true. What we have are two competing hypotheses:
    1) the diversity of life on earth is due to design; versus
    2) the diversity of life on earth is due to unguided evolution.
    The question is, which of these hypotheses fits the evidence better? The way to find out is to assume the truth of each hypothesis in turn, determine what it entails, and then compare the entailments to the evidence to see which hypothesis is the better fit.

    Your argument seems to be an attempt to bypass the necessity of showing that unguided evolution can actually produce X – that natural forces can create Orgel’s CSI. According to you, we must assume that it can and thus must hold that unguided evolution is a fully capable candidate for the explanation of life and its diversity. And next you cry victory without the need to show any evidence for its capability to do so.
    This attempt must fail. The fact that Darwinism/ unguided evolution predicts X is logically distinct from its actual ability to explain/produce X. Premise 2 offers a prediction, but that doesn’t warrant Darwinism’s status (in the conclusion) as a capable candidate. Without saying such a status needs actual proof. The very proof that Barry is asking for – showing that natural forces can create Orgel’s CSI.
    In order for your argument to work we need to add a premise 4:

    Darwinism (unguided evolution) and a creator are both capable of creating X

    Premise 4 won’t get approved here at UD, that I can promise you. It implies us to accept that that unguided evolution / natural forces can create Orgel’s CSI – without proof.

    Keith s #458: First we assume the truth of design. If design is correct, then there are zillions of possibilities, and consilient genetic and morphological hierarchies are vanishingly unlikely since they comprise less than one trillionth of the possibilities.

    How do you know that there are many possibilities? Simply stating that it is so, doesn’t make it true. Maybe there is only one way for the creator to fashion life. We have no way of knowing.
    Secondly, I restate my earlier objection: “it seems counter-intuitive to me, that the alleged creative versatility of a designer has such a negative effect on the likelihood of being a cause.”

    Keith s #458: Next we assume the truth of unguided evolution. In that case, we do expect to see consilient hierarchies, and our prediction is confirmed. If a hypothesis fits the evidence a trillion times better than its competitor, then it is hands down the better hypothesis. Now, you might object that if it turns out that evolution definitely cannot produce Orgel’s specified complexity (henceforth ‘OSC’), then ID is the better hypothesis after all. That’s true, but it’s up to you to demonstrate that evolution cannot produce OSC.

    So first you ask the reader to assume that unguided evolution is capable of producing OSC and next you claim that it is up to the reader to demonstrate that unguided evolution cannot produce OSC.
    This doesn’t make any sense.

    Keith s #458: I’ve already demonstrated that it is more than a trillion times likelier that it can produce OSC.

    You did no such thing. You did not provide evidence that that unguided evolution is capable of producing OSC, nor do you intend to provide such evidence. All you did was asking us to assume that unguided evolution has such a capability.
    And, as argued before, you cannot ground the “trillion” number at all.

    Keith s #458: Box writes: “Secondly, ID doesn’t hold to have knowledge of the intelligent designer.”
    Neither do I, which is why I make no assumptions about what the designer is trying to accomplish or what his/her/its capabilities are. All possibilities are open.

    Also the possibility that there are not a “trillion” of ways to create life, but only one? Please let go of your ‘many alternatives hypothesis’ – you cannot back it up.

    Keith s #458: Box writes: “Lastly, it seems counter-intuitive to me, that the alleged creative versatility of a designer has such a negative effect on the likelihood of being a cause.”
    You’re looking at it backwards. The question isn’t “If a designer exists, could it be a cause?” It’s “Given that something caused this, how likely is it that the cause was a designer?” The answer is, “Not likely at all.”

    Because you know that the designer has a trillion options to choose from? Do you at least have evidence for that number? No, you have not. Because, like everyone else, you simply have no way of knowing.

  467. 467

    What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

  468. 468
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s @ 460 (channeling wd400) claims,,,

    you don’t understand the topics being discussed and aren’t able to make a coherent argument in your own words.
    Case in point: Your spam about p-values above is entirely irrelevant to my argument, because the “one in trillions” claim has nothing to do with p-values. It’s based on the number of possible trees involving the 30 major taxa.
    It appears that you saw the word “statistics” in that article and blindly latched onto it despite having no idea whether it was relevant.

    Yet, your boy Theobald cites Fisher himself in his use of the term “statistical significance”

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
    Part 1: – The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree – Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
    Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P less than 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P less than less than 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990).
    per Talk Origins
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....._hierarchy

    and once again from my cite on Fisher and P-values:

    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    So keith s are you saying that you disagree with Theobald’s use of Fisher and p-values? Or are you saying that you did not know how he derived his ‘statistically significant’ figure”

    of related note:

    p-value
    In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.[1][2] A researcher will often “reject the null hypothesis” when the p-value turns out to be less than a predetermined significance level, often 0.05[3][4] or 0.01. Such a result indicates that the observed result would be highly unlikely under the null hypothesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

  469. 469
    bornagain77 says:

    further notes:

    Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis
    Casey Luskin November 29, 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

    Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – November 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    But Isn’t There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? – Casey Luskin – December 2010
    Excerpt: Dr. Theobald might have had a point, were it not for the fact that:
    (1) Phylogeny and biogeography don’t always agree.
    (2) Phylogeny and paleontology don’t always agree.
    (3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the “predicted” transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection). (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
    (5) “Homologous” structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have “homologous” developmental pathways.
    (6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41111.html

    Let the Worship Begin – Cornelius Hunter – May 2010
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354685

    Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black – November 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....black.html

  470. 470
  471. 471
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    wd400 said,

    you say

    Saying CSI is (the output of?) and uncomputable function doesn’t define it

    I say

    Of course it does. The same way that saying “E=MC squared” defines Energy

    You say

    (there are tonnes of non-computable functions).

    I say,

    correct and CSI is precisely what they all have in common

    you say,

    If you define CSI, show biology has CSI and prove that CSI can’t be produced by any algorithm then you might have something.

    I say,

    You don’t “prove” that a phenomena is non-computable algorithmically. To do so is to render it computable which is a contradiction.

    However all you have to do to prove computability is demonstrate the algorithm.

    you say,

    Just repeatedl saying CSI = NCF doesn’t quite make that cut (or, in fact, make sense).

    I say,

    It’s possible that Ive been unclear.Let me give it another go

    Complex specified information is not computable by definition. This is because there is no finite algorithmic program that can produce its specification exhaustively.

    It’s possible that the BF was produced algorithmically but if that is the case then it contains no CSI.

    Hope that helps

  472. 472
    Box says:

    WJM #467: What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

    In order to deal with Keith’s argument it’s probably best to make this assertion. It’s up to Keith to explain his reasoning. The idea that a designer can choose from many different designs (trillions) and therefor is a (trillions of times more) unlikely cause for an artifact is a central point in Keith’s “bomb”. This conjunction seems highly counter-intuitive to me.
    Is it unlikely that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, because he could have painted a trillion of other paintings? The fact that there were many options for Leonardo seems totally unrelated to the question if he is a likely cause or not. Much more relevant is the question: is Leonardo capable of painting the Mona Lisa?

    Capability(!) – the very thing Keith asks us not to question. Keith asks us to assume that both unguided evolution and a designer are capable of producing Orgel’s CSI. Instead of focusing on the capabilities of the candidates, Keith wants us to focus on the alleged creative versatility of one of the candidates (the designer) and go from there – which is irrelevant.

    Ok. I think I’m done with Keith’s bomb …

  473. 473
    Joe says:

    How can unguided evolution blow ID out of the water when it can’t even be tested yet ID cam be?

    Why does keiths link to an article that doesn’t support unguided evolution and is full of non-scientific bloviations?

    Why does keiths think his ignorance of nested hierarchies actually means something?

    Why is keiths too much of a coward to address the refutations of his trope?

  474. 474
    Joe says:

    thorton the cowardly equivocator- How was it determined that gene duplication followed by function altering mutations is a blind watchmaker process?

    Why do you think that your ignorance is a refutation?

  475. 475
    Quest says:

    Anybody would care to explain WHY Darwinists demand a scientific method to detect design in nature for what is obvious to everyone but them…? And yet they can’t and refuse to apply the same method to abiogenesis and macroevolution…? I’m really would like to hear the answer to the “WHY”…

  476. 476

    Box,

    If we ASSUME natural forces are CAPABLE of painting the Mona Lisa, then of course natural forces are the better explanation. Keiths doesn’t seem to understand that IF natural forces can plausibly produce **whatever** artifact is in question, even ID admits that natural forces is the best available explanation.

    You’re right – keiths insists upon assuming something that makes “natural forces” the better explanation in every single case of a specific unknown cause. He’s loaded his argument with a premise that necessarily guarantees his conclusion.

  477. 477
    Box says:

    WJM #476,

    That nails it! Thank you.

  478. 478
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Wd400,

    how about we go at this the long way?

    Take a close look at Pi

    First lets look at it’s specification. (A)

    “the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter”

    now lets look at it’s information (B)

    3.14159265359……………….

    There is no self-contained finite algrathym that will get you from (A) to (B) or vice versa.

    When I say that CSI=NCF that is what I mean.

    Once you signal that you understand this we can move forward.

    Thanks for the interaction

    peace

  479. 479
    StephenB says:

    BoxWith bombs like these, who needs flowers?

  480. 480
    Thorton says:

    Quest @ 475

    Anybody would care to explain WHY Darwinists demand a scientific method to detect design in nature for what is obvious to everyone but them…?

    Why single out ToE? Proper scientific methodology instead of ignorant layman’s “looks obvious to me!” intuition is required in all scientific disciplines. It’s been that way for 300 years. The real question is why ID thinks it should be exempt from the same methodology all of science uses.

    And yet they can’t and refuse to apply the same method to abiogenesis and macroevolution…? I’m really would like to hear the answer to the “WHY”…

    Hypotheses for Abiogenesis are being investigated using the same scientific methodology. Macroevolution was investigated with scientific methodology and found to have overwhelming positive evidence, enough that macroevolution is considered fact.

  481. 481
    StephenB says:

    Box

    With bombs like these, who needs flowers?

    Great comment.

  482. 482
    Learned Hand says:

    Anybody would care to explain WHY Darwinists demand a scientific method to detect design in nature for what is obvious to everyone but them…?

    Because lots of things that seem obvious turn out to not be true.

  483. 483
    tjguy says:

    Keith S.,

    Besides the little problem of not being able to show that unguided evolution can actually produce what you think it can, you have another huge problem.

    Where did the first life come from that enabled this whole process to get started.

    Without a totally materialistic origin of life, you got nuthin’!

    I mean, think about it.

    IF natural processes are unable to produce life,(and that is a distinct possibility!) then that brings a whole new set of facts into the argument for the evolution of life from one cell to man.

    Your whole argument for evolution is predicated on a materialistic view of OoL.

    What kind of a foundation is that to build on?!!

    So, 1) not only can you not show that your faith in natural processes to produce the variety of life has any validity in reality, 2) neither can you show that your faith in chemicals to self organize and magically come alive is completely without any connection to reality.

    Those are not little easily ignored problems – unless you have a pre-disposed bias to protect your worldview/belief system.

    For the claim that your hypothesis fits the evidence better than ours, I simply refer you to the difference between a shadow and a clock, a pile of sand or a sand castle, a pile of legos or a castle built out of legos.

    It’s a no brainer – unless you are a Materialist.

    These are some of the things we see in life:

    + information storage, retrieval, and processing systems

    + encoding and decoding machines that work on the same code

    + transportation systems

    + reproduction system that requires male and female to evolve in a complementary way

    + quality control systems

    + Mechanical switches, master switches

    + Lasso, splicing mechanisms

    + Molecular scissors employed in a self repair systems – even multi-step repair cycles

    + Piston engines, rotary engines

    + Respiratory machinery

    + Light gathering antenna and use of solar energy which we are trying to copy!

    + Copying and transcription machines

    + Electrical wiring(electricity conducting microtubules)
    + etc. etc. etc.

    Is there truly NOTHING beyond the reach of evolution?

    How does evolution predict this? It seems like every time we find something incredible like codes, DNA, a new machine, information, etc., scientists are what? SURPRISED! Why? Why doesn’t evolution predict this type of stuff? If evolution has so much explanatory power, why don’t they say “I told you so” instead of “Gee whiz! Who woulda thunk?!

    The use of machine language by cell biologists is increasing every week! And you just close your eyes and ears to this data, cling to your materialistic beliefs which seem to be unquestionable, and proclaim the superiority of your hypothesis saying it is “trillions of times better than the design hypothesis”!

    Hmm. Forgive me here for this language. I am not trying to get you angry by calling you a fool or doing it in a put down sort of way, but this Scripture passage seems quite appropo here:

    Romans 1:20-22
    “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”

    But no, the design hypothesis is inferior and you “know” that natural forces did it.

  484. 484
    Vishnu says:

    WJM @ 476,

    Once again, you bring extreme clarity to the discussion.

    Hats off

  485. 485
    tjguy says:

    Learned @482

    Anybody would care to explain WHY Darwinists demand a scientific method to detect design in nature for what is obvious to everyone but them…?

    Because lots of things that seem obvious turn out to not be true.


    Brilliant!!

    Learned, you have just done a splendid job of pointing out the main problem with historical science!

    It this is applicable to ID, don’t forget that it is then ALSO applicable to your own interpretation of the data!


    AND that is why, lacking the ability to test either hypothesis, it is silly, even foolish, not to allow the design hypothesis on the table!

  486. 486
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton:

    You say:

    “350+ posts in, not one brave IDer has stepped up to provide any CSI calculations or methodology.

    I guess we can flush the “CSI” turd down the swirly bowl.”

    Not true. Here is an example of calculation, one of many I have repeatedly offered, from another thread:

    Let’s take a molecule as an example: ATP synthase. A classic.

    It is a very good example, because:

    a) It is a very old molecule, already present in LUCA, before the archaea-bacteria divergence, almost 4 billion years ago.

    b) It is a very complex molecule: it is made of two different parts, F0 and F1, each of them made of many subunits, and each subunit is a complex protein.

    c) It is a very functional protein, indeed a wonderful molecular machine which transforms a proton gradient into stored biochemical energy in the form of ATP, working very much like a mill.

    d) It is a very conserved protein. Let’s take only the subunits alpha and beta, which make most of the F1 part. a multiple alignment between: the human protein, the archaea protein (methanosarcina barkeri) and the bacterial protein (E. coli) showed 176 identities for the alpha subunit and 202 identities for the beta subunit. A total of 378 perfectly conserved aminoacid positions in just two of the many subunits of the molecule, along the whole tree of life.

    e) Its local function is very clear: it synthesizes ATP from the energy derived from a proton gradient, transforming the flow of H+ ions into a mechanical rotation which in turn couples the phosphate molecule to ADP.

    f) Its meta-function is equally clear: it generates the energy substrate which makes all cellular life possible: ATP.

    Now, 378 identities after about 4 billion years during which all possible neutral mutations had time to happen mean just one thing: those 378 AAs must be there, and they must be what they are for the molecule to work.

    You want the dFSI value in bits? Well, as each conserved AA corresponds to 4.32 bits of functional information, the simple result is that the alpha and beta subunits of ATP synthase, together, have a value of dFSI which is at least 1633 bits. This is, indeed, a simplification of the Durston method, because I am considering only the identities, and not the similarities. Therefore, my value is certainly a lower threshold.

    With 1633 bits of functional information, we are well beyond any conceivable empirical threshold for a random system in our universe. As no algorithmic path to the specific sequences of these two proteins is known, or even reasonably conceivable, I safely infer design for them.

    And they are only a part of the whole ATP synthase molecule!

  487. 487
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinism does not have a scientific basis to test! ID does!

  488. 488
    Thorton says:

    Sorry gpuccio but you forgot to show the specification for your claimed CSI value. A specification is a before-the-fact document that lays out the performance a design is required to meet. All you did was calculate a value based on an after-the-fact description of the molecules. You could do the same thing with the result of a string of random coin flips and “prove” the string was “designed.”

    Any idiot can examine a complex object and declare after the fact that it is “specified”. It’s another thing entirely to show the before-the-fact specification.

    ID fails once again.

  489. 489
    Thorton says:

    tjguy

    it is silly, even foolish, not to allow the design hypothesis on the table.

    No one is stopping you from putting the design hypothesis on the table.

    Give us some specific predictions of the design hypothesis, things that are unique to the DH and different than can be expected from natural processes. That doesn’t include Casey Luskin’s hopelessly vague “ID predictions” list.

    Give us the falsification criteria for your hypothesis.

    Actually perform the experiments to test the specific predictions.

    Submit the positive results to mainstream science journals for critical review by the relevant experts.

    No one from the ID side has ever done such work. Maybe you can be the first.

  490. 490
    Axel says:

    Agreed with all that, Dionisio.

    You have a good weekend too. Half gone, mind you. Sorry!

  491. 491

    Learned Hand said:

    Because lots of things that seem obvious turn out to not be true.

    By this same argument, because a lot of things that seem obvious turn out to be true, we should accept all things that seem obvious as true.

    What appears to be obvious is good starting point for investigation. Virtually all historical evolutionists of any note, including Darwin, agree that life appears to be designed. As we investigate the nuts and bolts of life, do we find (1)evidence of design, or (2)evidence that material forces are sufficient to account for what we see?

    What we have uncovered seems to unfailingly diminish the credibility of the materialist account and bolster the design theorist. While in Darwin’s day one might reasonably think (marginally) that the materialist account could be valid (when all they thought they would find in a cell was some reductionist, proto-plasm like material that, when clumped together, would generate life-qualities as a matter of physical regularity), we have now knowledge of complex, precise, deep and organized nano-technology and corresponding multi-layer command, control and blueprint code in every cell.

    This is not a case of what appeared to be obvious becoming less and less likely to be true under investigation. This is a case of denial of the obvious as the obvious is investigated and understood to be more and more likely to be true. The fact that some things once thought to be obvious turned out to be untrue has become nothing more than an excuse for unsupportable hyperskepticism in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  492. 492
    Axel says:

    Mung, I was trying to think of the name, Kantian Naturalist. Also, the other day. He was a tartar, for sure!

    I’d love to have seen him and Elizabeth on opposing sides! I wouldn’t bet with your money on either beating the other with their sophistry, which they take to a level I’ve never seen anywhere else. Not even approaching it.

    Tell you what I don’t get. Their dismissively vague ‘take’ on QM as little more than mumbo-jumbo, suggests very compellingly to me that they consider the conclusions of perfectly-executed, mathematical calculations to be ‘negotiable’, if they don’t like them.

    In fact, in just the same way as they routinely ignore cogent, ironclad, empirical evidence, in principle, however, necessarily more tendentious than the ‘a priori’ truth of mathematics, when it refutes their preferred narrative!

  493. 493
    Box says:

    Thorton #488: It’s another thing entirely to show the before-the-fact specification.

    Can you provide an example of such a “before-the-fact specification”?
    No definition, just a practical example.

  494. 494
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton:

    Are you out of your mind? Or simply you son’t understand anything of ID?

    Please, read this OP of mine about functional specification:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-defined/

    Then, please read here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hannon-ii/

    my post #33.

    Then we can talk.

    Functional specification need not be “before the fact”. That has always been clear. Any specification which derives from explicit rules which generate an objective binary partition in the search space has no need to be “before the fact”.

    On the other hand, a specification which is given by listing the bits can only work as a pre-specification.

    Please, try to understand before giving trivial “arguments”.

  495. 495
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Can you provide an example of such a “before-the-fact specification”?
    No definition, just a practical example.

    Sure. Since the World Series is on here’s the specification for a major league baseball bat.

    1.10
    (a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
    NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
    (b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
    (c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
    NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
    (d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee

  496. 496
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    Are you out of your mind? Or simply you don’t understand anything of ID

    So you have no actual specification, just an after-the-fact description. Funny how no one in the entire scientific community “understands” your BS, make-it-up-as-you-go version of reality. Or maybe we do understand that ID’s empty semantic games aren’t a substitute for actual scientific positive evidence.

    Yet another reason ID isn’t taken seriously.

  497. 497
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Any idiot can examine a complex object and declare after the fact that it is “specified”. It’s another thing entirely to show the before-the-fact specification.

    So, IDists must “specify” ATP synthase before it occurred. But, of course, life wouldn’t exist, nor IDists, if ATP synthase hadn’t already occurred. So, you’re asking for the impossible.

    Then, your specifications for a bat:

    1.10
    (a) The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 23/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood.
    NOTE: No laminated or experimental bats shall be used in a professional game (either championship season or exhibition games) until the manufacturer has secured approval from the Rules Committee of his design and methods of manufacture.
    (b) Cupped Bats. An indentation in the end of the bat up to one inch in depth is permitted and may be no wider than two inches and no less than one inch in diameter. The indentation must be curved with no foreign substance added.
    (c) The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from its end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18 inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.
    NOTE: If the umpire discovers that the bat does not conform to (c) above until a time during or after which the bat has been used in play, it shall not be grounds for declaring the batter out, or ejected from the game.
    (d) No colored bat may be used in a professional game unless approved by the Rules Committee

    Tell me, did these “specifications” occur BEFORE a baseball bat existed?

    You’re incoherent.

  498. 498
    Upright BiPed says:

    Thorton can you name anything in the cosmos that is specified?

  499. 499
    Thorton says:

    Upright BiPed

    Thorton can you name anything in the cosmos that is specified?

    I just did. MLB baseball bats.

    Can you show me the specification for any living fauna or flora?

  500. 500
    Joe says:

    thorton is simple-minded. He doesn’t understand that by investigating something we can extract a specification. We don’t need the before-the-fact documents to prove that Stonehenge had one. We don’t need one for the Antikythera mechanism.

  501. 501
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    So, IDists must “specify” ATP synthase before it occurred. But, of course, life wouldn’t exist, nor IDists, if ATP synthase hadn’t already occurred. So, you’re asking for the impossible.

    That’s not science’s problem PaV. You’re the guys who are taking a description and claiming it is a specification. I know ID-Creationists love such stupid semantic games but science isn’t impressed.

  502. 502
    drc466 says:

    Thorton @454:

    drc466

    Are you arguing that there is a laboratory experiment out there that shows that a duplicated gene mutation created a novel function or feature not previously extant in the original organism? Citation please.

    It’s been empirically observed to happen.

    Really? Awesome! Thanks for finally providing some concrete, empirical, labratory experiment showing unguided processes creating new function! Let’s look at the details from your link, I can’t wait!

    Abstract: genome, enabling individuals to exploit diverse and variable environments. A prevailing hypothesis is that such adaptation has been favored by gene duplication events, which generate redundant genomic material that may evolve divergent functions. Vertebrate examples of recent whole-genome duplications are sparse although one example is the salmonids, which have undergone a whole-genome duplication event within the last 100 Myr. The life-cycle of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, depends on the ability to produce alternating phenotypes from the same genome, to facilitate migration and maintain its anadromous life history. Here, we investigate the hypothesis that genome-wide and local gene duplication events have contributed to the salmonid adaptation. We used high-throughput sequencing to characterize the transcriptomes of three key organs involved in regulating migration in S. salar: Brain, pituitary, and olfactory epithelium. We identified over 10,000 undescribed S. salar sequences and designed an analytic workflow to distinguish between paralogs originating from local gene duplication events or from whole-genome duplication events. These data reveal that substantial local gene duplications took place shortly after the whole-genome duplication event. Many of the identified paralog pairs have either diverged in function or become noncoding. Future functional genomics studies will reveal to what extent this rich source of divergence in genetic sequence is likely to have facilitated the evolution of extreme phenotypic plasticity required for an anadromous life-cycle.

    So:
    1) Genomic study that uses the assumption that evolution occurred and hypothesizes results based on that assumption
    2) Works only from the current genome, does not have any actual ancestral genome to compare against
    3) Self-admittedly hypothetical
    4) Computer models, not actual physical evidence
    5) “Paralogs” are assumed, not proven
    6) No evidence provided that the gene-duplications were the result of random changes. Just as possible that the modern gene-duplicated forms were the original forms
    7) As with junk DNA, the claims of “divergent function” or “became non-coding” are, at best, guesses – not knowing function != functionless.

    In short – like most evolutionary papers, this is a research paper that provides a hypothetical model of what might have happened based on the assumption that evolution did in fact occur through random, unguided naturalistic processes, and also based on incomplete understanding of the genomes of the organisms being studied. They didn’t actually take salmonids into a lab and document gene duplications. They didn’t take two existing salmonids, one with the gene duplications and one without. They didn’t find ancestral DNA, compare it to modern DNA, and show exact locations of gene duplications. Do you understand what this phrase means?:

    We used high-throughput sequencing to characterize the transcriptomes of three key organs

    So, as to your statement:

    It’s been empirically observed to happen.

    You need to find a dictionary. Soon. Otherwise, you risk

    [making] yourself [look] like an even bigger ignorant fool

  503. 503
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinism is not a science!

  504. 504
    Box says:

    Thorton, yours is the most ridiculous argument yet presented.

  505. 505
    Upright BiPed says:

    The specifications of the bat you mention came long after bats existed, and after the game of baseball existed. Your pre-specification idea is a rather silly concept with no principle at work to support it.

  506. 506
    Joe says:

    Box- I am sure thorton thinks his “argument” refutes ID. That is the really sad part.

    I bet the anti=IDists think they have dealt ID a death-blow with their comments in this thread. Seriously.

  507. 507
    Thorton says:

    LOL! Gotta love ID-Creationists.

    drc466 claims evolution by gene duplication is impossible.

    I show him a scientific paper where an event was empirically verified.

    He whips out the usual excuses: “BAD ASSUMPTIONS!!” “YOU DIDN’T SEE IT HAPPEN”. “YOU DIDN’T PROVE IT WASN’T THE MAGIC DESIGNER!!”

    Yet another reason ID-Creationism isn’t taken seriously.

  508. 508
    Joe says:

    Merely duplicating a gene does nothing.

  509. 509
    SteRusJon says:

    Thorton @495

    I am quite sure that specification was written well after the first bat was devised to reign in ongoing refinement to the design of bats and make for a level playing field. Just saying.

    Is it not conceivable that the rules governing bats in MLB games could be deduced by observation? By measuring and inspecting bats in use in actual games. While you might not be 100% confident, based on that deduction, could you not select a bat for your own use that would not get thrown out by the umps?

    gpiccio @488 did a good job of “watching the game” and deducing the requirements for ATP synthase to be a “proper bat” in the production of ATP. It turns out that not just any old “bat” will do. There are some specific characteristics ATP synthase must have to be “used in the game”. After-the-fact-specification? So what! If you want to make ATP, it seems you need an ATP synthase that conforms to some rules.

    Stephen

  510. 510
    bornagain77 says:

    em·pir·i·cal
    ?m?pirik(?)l/
    adjective
    adjective: empirical

    based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

  511. 511
    Thorton says:

    Psst…hey Joke…

    Take a look at the actual scientific literature. There’s no mention of any “ID theory” anywhere. Science doesn’t have to refute what doesn’t exist. All we’re doing is pointing out how inane and worthless your “evidence” for the Magic Designer really is. And laughing at you of course.

  512. 512
    bornagain77 says:

    2, Darwinism is not a science!

  513. 513
    Thorton says:

    Let me try ID-Creationist “logic”.

    In Idaho there’s a lake that was formed when a landslide partially blocked a river creating a dam. I measure the position of each of the million rocks that formed the dam. That’s my “specification” with thousands of bits of “CSI”. The dam is functional because the lake provides a habitat for lots of fish and water fowl.

    Over 500 bits of functional CSI is evidence the rock dam was Intelligently Designed. Right?

  514. 514
    Joe says:

    LoL!@ thorton- there isn’t any mention of blind watchmaker evolution anywhere. There aren’t any testable hypotheses for it, there isn’t any research, nothing.

    And yes, morons usually laugh at stuff they are too dim to comprehend. We expect that from you and your ilk

  515. 515
    Joe says:

    Thankfully thorton is neither a scientist nor an investigator.

    Why does timmy think that his belligerence hurts ID?

  516. 516
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton.

    You are right that specifications must be made before hand. Joe is also right that we “extract a specification” by investigation.

    That is the whole point of discovery.

    Think about Pi again

    Humans did not specify Pi before it existed. The specification for pi always existed. Humans merely discovered it when we began to investigate geometry

    peace

  517. 517
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    In light of your supposed refutation of design. It seems to me that you gave not really thought it through. You seem to ignore common design. Why us that?

    I don’t ignore common design. Haven’t you read my OP? It explains why common design is ruled out along with the other forms of ID.

    Also what’s up with a designer could have used trillions of possible configurations. Seems to me you know something about design then but end up denying it……

    I’m not denying design. Your computer/phone/tablet is assuredly designed. What I’m denying is that design explains the diversity of terrestrial life.

  518. 518
    keith s says:

    bystander,

    kieth S @459 Perhaps you need to read the assumptions made by cladists ?

    [followed by lengthy quote from a Berkeley cladistics site]

    I’m aware of the assumptions. Do you have a point to make regarding them?

  519. 519
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton

    Function is also not the same thing as Specification. look at your bat example. a lead pipe might function well enough to hit a ball but it will never make a MLB bat

  520. 520
    Joe says:

    Unguided evolution could explain the diversity of life if and only if life started with a great diversity, including all the separate Genera.

    OTOH keiths’ bloviations and misrepresentations do nothing to the design inference.

  521. 521
    keith s says:

    WJM,

    What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

    We’re not talking about engineering methods or designs. We’re talking about the pattern of relatedness among designs, and the vanishingly small probability that a designer would produce the same pattern that evolution would be expected to produce.

  522. 522
    bornagain77 says:

    Theobald’s site, and specifically his calculation, is a joke.

  523. 523
    Joe says:

    keiths, If gradual evolution predicts a smooth blending of traits AND it does not have a direction, traits can be lost, why would it predict an objective nested hierarchy seeing that both of those would negate such a thing?

    A smooth blending of traits would cause an overlap in the defined sets. Can’t have an overlap with nested hierarchies. Darwin had to call upon extinctions that just so happened to create the distinct sets Linnaeus used as evidence for a Common Design.

    That you refuse to deal with that proves how weak your “argument” is.

  524. 524
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton,

    Suppose we found a MLB bat on the surface of mars. Could we infer design?

  525. 525
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    We’re talking about the pattern of relatedness among designs, and the vanishingly small probability that a designer would produce the same pattern that evolution would be expected to produce.

    Umm evolution doesn’t have a direction. So what pattern should we expect it to produce and please reference the theory of evolution so we can check it out.

    Or keep avoiding the issues and continue your cowardly evasions.

  526. 526
    Box says:

    fm #524: Suppose we found a MLB bat on the surface of mars. Could we infer design?

    [thorton mode] Only if the MLB bat was specified before it ever existed. [/thorton mode]

  527. 527
    keith s says:

    Willam J Murray:

    If we ASSUME natural forces are CAPABLE of painting the Mona Lisa, then of course natural forces are the better explanation. Keiths doesn’t seem to understand that IF natural forces can plausibly produce **whatever** artifact is in question, even ID admits that natural forces is the best available explanation.

    You’re right – keiths insists upon assuming something that makes “natural forces” the better explanation in every single case of a specific unknown cause. He’s loaded his argument with a premise that necessarily guarantees his conclusion.

    Box:

    WJM #476,

    That nails it! Thank you.

    Vishnu:

    WJM @ 476,

    Once again, you bring extreme clarity to the discussion.

    Hats off

    Come on, folks. You’re not thinking this through.

    I assume the truth of both unguided evolution and intelligent design, in turn:

    First we assume the truth of design. If design is correct, then there are zillions of possibilities, and consilient genetic and morphological hierarchies are vanishingly unlikely since they comprise less than one trillionth of the possibilities.

    Next we assume the truth of unguided evolution. In that case, we do expect to see consilient hierarchies, and our prediction is confirmed.

    If a hypothesis fits the evidence a trillion times better than its competitor, then it is hands down the better hypothesis.

    Each hypothesis gets the same treatment. This is Science 101, folks.

  528. 528
    bornagain77 says:

    Theobald did not test against design!

    National Geographic notes in a subheadline: “Creationism called ‘absolutely horrible hypothesis’ — statistically speaking.” The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.

    Again, if you don’t believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald’s paper had to say (approving the critique!):

    Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that “it is trivial”. It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification. Ignoring the strength of the universality of the genetic code and the commonality of central intermediary metabolism among cells as evidence, Theobald construed a non-issue that the referees of his paper, whoever they may have been, found convincing and novel (!).
    (Comments by William Martin of the University of Duesseldorf in review of Eugene V Koonin and Yuri I Wolf, “The common ancestry of life,” Biology Direct, Vol. 5:64 (2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

  529. 529
    REC says:

    “life wouldn’t exist, nor IDists, if ATP synthase hadn’t already occurred.”

    If you have a modest lab (even a kitchen) you can order up some “life without ATP synthase” and grow it yourself!

    http://www.yeastgenome.org/locus/ATP2/overview
    http://www.yeastgenome.org/locus/ATP1/overview

    ATP synthase is not the only way to make ATP.

  530. 530
    bornagain77 says:

    3. Darwinism is not science!

  531. 531
    keith s says:

    bornagain77,

    Of course Theobald uses p-values, like practically every other scientist in the world!

    But he doesn’t use them to establish the 1 in 10^38 number that forms the basis of my “one in trillions” claim.

    Your p-value spam is completely irrelevant.

    You might as well hang a sign around your neck reading, “I have no idea what I’m arguing against, but whatever it is, I know it’s wrong!”

    You aren’t doing the ID cause any favors by playing The Blind Spam-Maker.

  532. 532
    keith s says:

    And while I was composing my previous comment, bornagain77 was posting even more pointless spam.

    Theobald’s 2010 paper has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here, which is the astounding consilience among trees of the 30 major taxa.

  533. 533
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, insults instead of evidence again?,, anyways, so you distance yourself from Theobald’s fallacious claim that he has establish ‘statistical significance’ for common descent? That is good. I know of no other refereed paper from Theobald that has tried to numerically establish universal common descent as probable by 1 in 10^38 margin. ,,, Saw no mention of it in Darwin’s Doubt. Seen no mention of it on ENV. Funny since you think this is completely separate from the original paper from Theobald that was such a joke! Unless I’ve missed something you have not shown the paper or the calculation on this thread. I would be very interested to see where you get this fallacious 1 in 10^38 number from since apparently a bomb went off that no one heard or mentioned.

  534. 534
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton:

    I certainly have no thortonian specification. And I am very proud of it.

    Good by.

  535. 535
    keith s says:

    tjguy:

    Where did the first life come from that enabled this whole process to get started.

    Without a totally materialistic origin of life, you got nuthin’!

    tjguy,

    To the contrary. My argument doesn’t depend at all on a materialist explanation of life’s origin.

    I’m arguing that after life got started — however that happened — the subsequent process was unguided, as the evidence shows.

  536. 536
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton at #513:

    Your statements are ever more silly. The rest of this post is not for you (you are beyond hope), but for those who may read this disappointing and boring debate:

    Thorton says:

    “In Idaho there’s a lake that was formed when a landslide partially blocked a river creating a dam. I measure the position of each of the million rocks that formed the dam. That’s my “specification” with thousands of bits of “CSI”. The dam is functional because the lake provides a habitat for lots of fish and water fowl.

    Over 500 bits of functional CSI is evidence the rock dam was Intelligently Designed. Right?”

    Wrong. Th specified functional complexity is the mimimum number of bit which are linked to the implementation of the function.

    The “position of each of the million rocks that formed the dam” is no functional specification at all. Only someone like Thorton, who a priori refuses to even read what his interlocutors say, can state such a thing.

    A functional specification would be the ration between all the configurations which can implememt a dam, and all possible configurations. Given the system, and all possible variations which natural laws can generate, how many of the possible variation events will generate a configuration which can act as a dam?

    That is the right concept, but I doubt that Thorton will even try to understand it. His favorite hobby seems to be to debate what he does not know.

  537. 537
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    I certainly have no thortonian specification. And I am very proud of it.

    You have no specification of any kind for biological life.

    Not sure why you’d be proud of an ID argument that’s so easy to be shown worthless but hey, if it makes you happy…

  538. 538
    gpuccio says:

    Box:

    “Thorton mode” can really be a new standard! 🙂

  539. 539
    keith s says:

    bornagain77,

    Why are you asking to be spoonfed?

    Read Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

  540. 540
    Quest says:

    Thorton,
    You didn’t answer my question;
    “They (Darwinists) can’t and refuse to apply the same method (scientific BTW) to abiogenesis and macroevolution…? I really would like to hear the answer to the “WHY”…

    Why don’t you provide your scientific method first and worry about IDs later to come up with what you demand of them….

  541. 541
    REC says:

    “Given the system, and all possible variations which natural laws can generate, how many of the possible variation events will generate a configuration which can act as a dam?”

    Given the system, and all possible variations which natural laws can generate, how many of the possible variation events will generate an organism with improved ‘fitness’?

  542. 542
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    A functional specification would be the ration [sic] between all the configurations which can implememt a dam, and all possible configurations. Given the system, and all possible variations which natural laws can generate, how many of the possible variation events will generate a configuration which can act as a dam?

    Where’s your “functional specification” ratio for an energy producing molecule like ATP then? Where’s your list of all possible implementations and all possible variations which natural laws can generate? Not just by “falling together” haphazardly but by iterative feedback processes that gradually increase in complexity?

    Shot yourself in the foot again I see.

  543. 543
    gpuccio says:

    REC at #529:

    Could you please explain why you post two links to the two subunits of ATP synthase in yeast as evidence of “life without ATP synthase”?

    Am I missing something?

  544. 544
    Thorton says:

    Quest

    Why don’t you provide your scientific method first and worry about IDs later to come up with what you demand of them.

    It’s not MY scientific method. It’s the same scientific method used by all of science.

    Introduction to the Scientific Method

    Why is not surprising the ID-Creationists are unfamiliar with the scientific method concepts?

  545. 545
    Quest says:

    My real question was why Darwinist consciously decided to abandon all common sense and turn into the fairy-tails of non-science just to prove their point…? I would like to know why…?

  546. 546
    REC says:

    “Summary Paragraph

    ATP1 encodes the alpha subunit of mitochondrial ATP synthase …

    Although ATP1 is essential for ATP synthase function, it is not essential for life in yeast.”

  547. 547
    REC says:

    “Summary Paragraph

    ATP1 encodes the alpha subunit of mitochondrial ATP synthase …

    Although ATP1 is essential for ATP synthase function, it is not essential for life in yeast.”

  548. 548
    keith s says:

    Joe,

    I usually ignore you, but in this case you’re actually trying to make an argument, so I’ll respond.

    If gradual evolution predicts a smooth blending of traits AND it does not have a direction, traits can be lost, why would it predict an objective nested hierarchy seeing that both of those would negate such a thing?

    Gradual evolution doesn’t predict a smooth blending of traits. Where did you get that idea?

    Also, the loss of traits is not a problem for nested hierarchies. The common ancestor of today’s cat species lost its sweet receptor millions of years ago, but that doesn’t prevent us from placing the cats properly in the tree.

  549. 549
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton:

    Again, not for you.

    “Iterative feedback processes” have nothing to do with the computation of the probability of a functional sequence in a random system. They are algorithms. If Thorton had read my posts to him, he would have read the following phrase:

    “With 1633 bits of functional information, we are well beyond any conceivable empirical threshold for a random system in our universe. As no algorithmic path to the specific sequences of these two proteins is known, or even reasonably conceivable, I safely infer design for them.

    Emphasis added.

    He also says:

    “Where’s your list of all possible implementations and all possible variations which natural laws can generate?”

    If he had read my many posts on the subject, or just simply Durston’s paper on functional complexity in protein families, which I always quote, he would understand (OK, he probably wouldn’t) that the functional set is computed indirectly, by the application of a Shannon like metric to the proteins exhibiting the described function throughout natural history. I have done the same thing, in a simplified way, by blastin the alpha and beta subunits of ATP synthase from the three basic different kingdoms of life: the human protein, the archaea protein (methanosarcina barkeri) and the bacterial protein (E. coli).

    The identities observed can be explained best by their functional conservation from the original progenitor in LUCA. Therefore, I assume that they are conserved because functional.

    OK, that’s it. I am really bored.

  550. 550

    keiths argument is entirely trivial. ID already stipulates that if natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, natural forces are the better explanation.

  551. 551
    gpuccio says:

    REC:

    Ak, OK. It was at the foot of the page, please next time be more precise in references 🙂

    The whole phrase is, just for reference:

    “Although ATP1 is essential for ATP synthase function, it is not essential for life in yeast. Deletion of ATP1, like deletions in many genes necessary for the function or maintenance of mitochondria, leads to a “petite” phenotype that is slow-growing and unable to survive on nonfermentable carbon sources”

    You also ask:

    Given the system, and all possible variations which natural laws can generate, how many of the possible variation events will generate an organism with improved ‘fitness’?

    Well, I hope you are more reasonable than Thorton, and maybe you will listen to what I say 🙂

    If you are familiar with ID, you may understand that the point is not “an organism with improved ‘fitness’”. We can sometimes observe that in the known microevolutionary scenarios.

    The point is, as you should know:

    “how many of the possible variation events will generate an organism with improved ‘fitness’ linked to the appearance of a new complex protein superfamily?”

    Maybe we already had this discussion sometime? 🙂

  552. 552
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    As no algorithmic path to the specific sequences of these two proteins is known, or even reasonably conceivable, I safely infer design for them.”

    Sorry gpuccio but reality isn’t affected by your your ignorance induced inability to conceive of it.

    I note you couldn’t provide those “functional specification” ratios for ATP-like molecules either. What a surprise.

  553. 553
    keith s says:

    William,

    keiths argument is entirely trivial. ID already stipulates that if natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, natural forces are the better explanation.

    My argument demonstrates that ID has less than a one in a trillion chance of being true. If you think that’s “entirely trivial”, well, you always were an odd bird.

    To others here it is a bomb that needs to be defused. Can you help them, or are you bailing out?

  554. 554
    gpuccio says:

    William J Murray:

    Keith’s argument is not even an argument. But it’s useless to try to convince him. He probably believes it, otherwise he would randomly shift to other tactics, like many of his companions.

    So, we can at least respect his faith.

  555. 555
    Joe says:

    keiths, you ignore me because I refute everything you say, including the following:

    Gradual evolution doesn’t predict a smooth blending of traits. Where did you get that idea?

    Darwin 1859 and every other subsequent incantation of natural selection and drift. Only saltation avoids it. Are you a saltationist? How does that square with gradual evolution?

    Transitional forms, keiths.

    Also, the loss of traits is not a problem for nested hierarchies. The common ancestor of today’s cat species lost its sweet receptor millions of years ago, but that doesn’t prevent us from placing the cats properly in the tree.

    Not all trees are nested hierarchies. You are confusing the fact that a nested hierarchy can be drawn as a tree with any tree being a nested hierarchy.

    Denton 1985 refuted your argument well before you made it. But now you have proven that you don’t understand the concept of nested hierarchies.

    That said, unguided evolution can’t even get beyond the level of prokaryotes so any tree that includes eukaryotes cannot be the result of unguided evolution.

    Nice try though. I am sure you will ignore that refutation and continue to blather on.

  556. 556
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    Well, I hope you are more reasonable than Thorton, and maybe you will listen to what I say

    Why should anyone listen to what you say when what you claim is demonstrably wrong?

    You IDers got way too comfortable with UD’s incestuous group-grope where all critics of your ideas were banned. Now that discussion is open again and you have to defend the nonsense to scientifically literate folks who know the subject matter you don’t know what to do.

  557. 557
    keith s says:

    Here’s a report that Barry has started banning people again.

    If I suddenly disappear from the thread, that will be why.

    You’re all welcome to continue the discussion with me at The Skeptical Zone if that happens.

  558. 558
    Joe says:

    Three words keiths. Three words evolutionism lives and dies by-> small incremental changes. That leads to transitional forms which equal a smooth blending of traits.

    Or is yours some totally different version of unguided evolution?

  559. 559
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton said,

    You have no specification of any kind for biological life.

    I say

    Are you sure of that?

    How about something like this

    “a functional working irreducibly complex rotary propulsion engine”?

    would that count as a specification in your book?

    peace

  560. 560
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    Why should anyone listen to what you say when what you claim is demonstrably wrong?

    Nice projection.

  561. 561
    keith s says:

    gpuccio:

    Keith’s argument is not even an argument. But it’s useless to try to convince him. He probably believes it, otherwise he would randomly shift to other tactics, like many of his companions.

    So, we can at least respect his faith.

    gpuccio,

    You’re more than welcome to refute my argument, in the unlikely event that you can. Or you can pull a Mung and run for cover while braver folks attempt to defuse the bomb.

  562. 562
    Box says:

    Keith s,

    William J Murray has raised a devastatingly principled objection to your “argument”, whether you accept it or not.
    Now about your “trillion”, and a few other problems with your argument, please read post #466 and #472.

  563. 563
    Joe says:

    keiths has claimed that gradual evolution does not predict transitional forms.

    Do other evolutionists agree with this?

  564. 564
    Thorton says:

    Two words Joe:

    toaster repairman

  565. 565
    REC says:

    ““how many of the possible variation events will generate an organism with improved ‘fitness’ linked to the appearance of a new complex protein superfamily?”

    RETREAT! lol

    Here we were discussing the specification of (the non-essential protein ATP synthase), and now you’ve retreated to super-families.

    I think this is a silly argument, likely inspired by wikipedia: “A protein superfamily is the largest grouping (clade) of proteins for which common ancestry can be inferred (see homology).”

    How many super-families appear only in vertebrates? Is microevolution now defined as everythinng produced within a protein superfamily? That is a lot. Even ATP synthase units aren’t in their own superfamilies, so I suppose you are conceding that as ‘microevolution’

  566. 566
    keith s says:

    Box,

    William J Murray has raised a devastatingly principled objection to your “argument”, whether you accept it or not.

    If so, then you should be able to explain exactly why my counterargument fails. I’m all ears.

  567. 567
    REC says:

    Also:

    Evolutionary relationship of two ancient protein superfolds

    http://www.nature.com/nchembio......1579.html

  568. 568
    Joe says:

    REC- what is your position’s explanation for ATP synthase? “It just happened, it just happened to work, so there it is”?

    Unguided evolution can’t get us beyond prokaryotes. Heck it can’t even get us to prokaryotes. Given prokaryotes unguided evolution can give us more prokaryotes.

    And we understand why that has you guys very upset.

  569. 569
    keith s says:

    Joe,

    Blending inheritance was rejected long ago. Nested hierarchies and transitional forms do not require it.

  570. 570
    Joe says:

    keiths, you fail because you don’t have an argument. Now run back to the protection of TSZ.

  571. 571
    gpuccio says:

    keith s:

    I have already discussed that “argument” in the past. I will not do it again. It’s not worthwhile.

    You should already know my ideas about that. If you believe that it is a “bomb”, that’s OK for me.

  572. 572
    gpuccio says:

    REC:

    Again that paper? Are you really convinced that it means something?

    If that is your best argument, you have all my compassion.

  573. 573
    rich says:

    Joe wants to play ”how does evolution explain…” Whack a mole. Of course there is no corresponding ID narrative, because there is no substance to ID. And if you think we’ll be fine with “by design” then you should also be fine with “by evolution”

  574. 574
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s at 539, what no specific citation or calculation? But, since you disown Theobald’s original calculation, where is the other ‘1 in 10^38’ peer reviewed bomb you are so proud of??? Man dust that peer-reviewed calculation off and shine it up and let us take a gander at it! What are you so bashful for? ,,, An invitation to dig through Theobald’s garbage dump of unsubstantiated conjectures is hardly the kind of sparkle and bang I would expect from the ‘bomb’ you are so proud of!
    Moreover, digging through Theobald’s garbage dump of literature bluffs has been done already:

    A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp
    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

    Camp Answers Theobald Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique By Ashby L. Camp
    http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html

    and even though, as mentioned periously, it is humorous to watch you use fallacious math to try prove that God does not exist,,, since it is a bit like watching a fish trying to prove that water does not exist,,,

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….,,,
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521563

    ,,, even though that is certainly humorous and interesting to watch you do (with all the flopping around on the ground and stuff),, more to the point of seeing if universal common descent is actually true or not, as pointed out before, the fossil record looks nothing like what would be predicted if universal common descent were true. In fact, the fossil record itself displays a top down pattern of disparity preceding diversity

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity – Casey Luskin – February 4, 2014
    Excerpt: “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81911.html

    And as mentioned previously, Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found in the fossil record after it as well. No where is this more pronounced that in the Cambrian period,,,

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    keith s, regardless of what you think that your fallacious 1 in 10^38 calculation shows you (whereever this peer-reviewed calculation is), this ‘disparity preceding diversity’ pattern in the fossil record is NOT what Darwinism predicts for the appearance of life on earth! Moreover, sequences do not conform to what is expected on a Darwinian presuppostion:

    Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
    Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors.
    Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,,
    Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance:
    • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6
    • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7
    • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8
    Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,,
    Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,,
    “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
    A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

    Moreover keith s, contrary to what is presupposed in neo-Darwinism, morphological forms, i.e. body plans, are not even reducible to sequences on DNA (or even to sequences on proteins) in the first place.

    Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA Jonathan Wells
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM

    These are not minor problems, keith s, that can be waved away with a wave of the hand and a vague referece to the talk origins web site, but are fundamental problems (of which many more fundamental problems could be listed) which call the entire edifice of Darwinism into question,,, (in fact, as far as empirical evidence is concerned, Darwinism is already falsified empirically by advances in quantum mechanics!)

  575. 575
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    Blending inheritance was rejected long ago.

    Who was talking about blending inheritance? I know I wasn’t.

    Is that the best you have? Really?

    Nested hierarchies and transitional forms do not require it.

    So what? Transitional forms violate objective nested hierarchies. Denton went over this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”.

    But anyway seeing that you seem unable to support anything you say with references to the theory, and seeing that you are totally clueless when it comes to nested hierarchy, consider that part of your argument refuted.

  576. 576
    gpuccio says:

    Guys,

    I can only restate my #219. This is not my idea of a discussion.

  577. 577
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Joe wants to play ”how does evolution explain…”

    Shut up, rich. I am refuting keiths’ argument. I understand that you are also totally clueless and need to run distraction for him, but shut up and stop being such a cowardly wanker.

  578. 578
    Joe says:

    rich is oblivious to the fact that it is evolutionism that claims to have a step-by-step process that explains the diversity of life.

    How can you be so blissfully ignorant, rich?

  579. 579
    Joe says:

    Evo- “We have a step-by-step process that explains the diversity of life.”

    IDist- “OK then, go ahead”

    Evo- “IDiot wants details!”

  580. 580
    rich says:

    You’re the only one banging on about ‘evolutionism’, Joe – and the only one who cares about it. But thanks for acknowledging IDs complete lack of descriptive capability.

  581. 581
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    I can only restate my #219. This is not my idea of a discussion.

    Yeah, we know. Your idea of a discussion is where everyone accepts uncritically every nonsense idea you dream up. Lots of ID-Creationists have the same ego-driven problem. Sorry but scientific reality isn’t determined that way.

  582. 582
    Joe says:

    IDists- “We have a step-by-step process for helping us differentiate between nature, operating freely and that which is intelligently designed.”

    Evo- “Until you have a step-by-step process of how the design was implemented you don’t have anything.”

    IDists- “The how comes after we have already determined design exists.”

    Evo- “Who is the designer? Who designed your designer?”

    🙂

  583. 583
    rich says:

    Your meltdown has extended into Saturday, Joe. Another example of the poverty of ID is they can’t be too fussy about their membership, apparently 😀

  584. 584
    bornagain77 says:

    “As Whittington analyzed the Cambrian fauna at the Burgess [in the 1960s], he realized that Walcott (before 1917) had grossly underestimated the morphological disparity of this group of animals. Many of the creatures in the assemblage featured unique body designs, unique anatomical structures, or both. Opabinia, with its five eyes, fifteen distinct segments, and claw at the end of a long proboscis exemplified the unique forms on display at the Burgess. But so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess animals. To this day, paleontologists describing Nectocaris, for example, can’t decide whether it more closely resembles an arthropod, a chordate, or a cephalopod (a class of mollusk)”.
    Stephen Meyer – ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (pp. 52–53).

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

  585. 585
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    You’re the only one banging on about ‘evolutionism’, Joe – and the only one who cares about it.

    Umm, keiths is. I am refuting his argument that allegedly supports it. Are you really that stupid?

    But thanks for acknowledging IDs complete lack of descriptive capability.

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a cowardly wanker.

  586. 586
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Your meltdown has extended into Saturday, Joe.

    Nice projection, AV boy. I guess when faced with the humiliation I have been handing you you might as well keep living in denial and try to somehow spin your humiliation into something else.

  587. 587
    rich says:

    Yeah keiths! You also used to be a better writer!

  588. 588
    Joe says:

    586 should be “rich”, not keiths

  589. 589
    rich says:

    Hmmmmm! Humiliation!

    *bites bottom lip*

  590. 590
    Box says:

    Keith s
    If so, then you should be able to explain exactly why my counterargument fails. I’m all ears.

    WJM : keiths argument is entirely trivial. ID already stipulates that if natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, natural forces are the better explanation.

    Now your counterargument seems to be: Let’s assume that natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, so I can go on concluding that natural forces are the better explanation.

    Why do you believe that this even an argument? Do you have any idea how the design inference works?
    Why do you claim that it is science 101 to assume that natural forces can plausibly generate Orgel’s CSI – without any evidence?

    * p.s. don’t forget about post #466 and #472.

  591. 591
    Joe says:

    rich, once again relegated to the distraction and cheer-leading crew.

    That is the only reason they keep you around, rich.

  592. 592
    bornagain77 says:

    I second gppucio, the quality of posts has certainly taken a nose dive. ,,,

  593. 593
    Joe says:

    Nice job, rich. You have turned your humiliation into a hummmmmmer. How did it feel?

  594. 594
    keith s says:

    gpuccio,

    I have already discussed that “argument” in the past.

    I remember that discussion, which is why I said it was unlikely that you’d be able to identify a flaw in my argument.

    Better take cover with Mung while your braver comrades attempt to defuse the bomb.

  595. 595
    Thorton says:

    IDists- “We have a step-by-step process for helping us differentiate between nature, operating freely and that which is intelligently designed.”

    Scientist – “OK, let’s test the process on some real world articles”

    IDist- “EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!”

    Scientist- “that has nothing to do with your claimed design detection process. Let’s see the process work”

    IDist- “EVOLUTION CAN’T EXPLAIN ANYTHING!!”

    Scientists- “We were discussing your claimed design detection process”

    IDist- “DARWIN BEAT PUPPIES SO EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!!”

    Scientist- “(face palm) Call us when you have your ID evidence.

  596. 596
    Joe says:

    The quality of opponents has taken a node dive. The quality of comments has followed them down the abyss.

    That is what happens when you open the flood gate- you get whirlpools that suck everything down.

  597. 597
    rich says:

    Oh Joe. That’s some weapons grade projection right there.

    For ‘ID the scientific endeavor’, you’ve offered the same as everyone else: nothing.

    But for ‘ID the comedic enterprise’, you’ve been a leading light! Cantor, gravity, looking for the largest known number, pyramidology, h202, ticks on watermelons – the hits go on and on! 😀

  598. 598
    Joe says:

    Scientist – “OK, let’s test the process on some real world articles”

    OK we are waiting. And waiting

    BTW ID is not anti-evolution. Why is thorton such a low-life?

  599. 599
    Joe says:

    rich:

    For ‘ID the scientific endeavor’, you’ve offered the same as everyone else: nothing.

    Liar. You aren’t even qualified to assess anything, rich. So wouldn’t wouldn’t even know.

    But do keep up your distractions and cheer-leading. It is all you have.

  600. 600
    rich says:

    BA77:

    “I second gppucio, the quality of posts has certainly taken a nose dive. ,,,”

    Could you support that with 800 words of copypasta including 7 YouTube links, please?

  601. 601
    Box says:

    I can’t see the bomb for the bombardment.

  602. 602
    bornagain77 says:

    so rich, do you think matters of science are settled with smart remarks and insults of other people? i.e. was Don Rickles the greatest scientist of all time in your book?

    Myself, I hope Mr. Arrington re-imposes some type of moderation to at least keep UD from becoming no different from youtube comments section.

  603. 603
    keith s says:

    Box:

    Your argument seems to be an attempt to bypass the necessity of showing that unguided evolution can actually produce X – that natural forces can create Orgel’s CSI. According to you, we must assume that it can and thus must hold that unguided evolution is a fully capable candidate for the explanation of life and its diversity. And next you cry victory without the need to show any evidence for its capability to do so.

    This attempt must fail. The fact that Darwinism/ unguided evolution predicts X is logically distinct from its actual ability to explain/produce X. Premise 2 offers a prediction, but that doesn’t warrant Darwinism’s status (in the conclusion) as a capable candidate.

    You are apparently oblivious to the fact that your objection, if valid, would be fatal to ID as well as to unguided evolution.

    To illustrate that, I’ve reworded your comment in terms of ID:

    Your argument seems to be an attempt to bypass the necessity of showing that a designer actually exists and can produce X – that a designer exists who can create Orgel’s CSI. According to you, we must assume that it does, and can, and thus must hold that the designer exists and is a fully capable candidate for the explanation of life and its diversity. And next you cry victory without the need to show any evidence for its capability to do so.

    This attempt must fail. The fact that your putative designer predicts X is logically distinct from its actual ability to explain/produce X. Premise 2 offers a prediction, but that doesn’t warrant your designer’s status (in the conclusion) as a capable candidate.

    You’ve shot yourself in the foot, Box. Your argument is fatal to your own position.

  604. 604
    rich says:

    Oh cheer up, BA77. If you’re going to critique the quality of comments do you think yours should be taboo?

  605. 605
    rich says:

    Keiths – the bomb disposal squad was unavailable so they sent the ‘bomb denial squad’

  606. 606
    Thorton says:

    bornagain77

    so rich, do you think matters of science are settled with smart remarks and insults of other people?

    You tell ’em Phil!. Everyone knows matters of science are settled with huge C&Ped word salads from Creationist websites and link to cloying Christian music videos.

  607. 607
    Box says:

    Keith #603,

    Somehow you added “exist” in your “rewording”… You simply added that, with the intend to divert. Disappointing.
    Capability is not a problem, as you well know, intelligent designers are capable of producing Orgel’s CSI – contrary to natural forces.

    Are such arguments effective at TSZ? I’m signing out.

  608. 608
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    I was hoping to have a discussion with some intelligent ID critics and get an honest serious critique of my latest speculations. I mean that sincerely. If I’m wrong about my claims I truly want to know it.

    But I’m not sure any kind of civil dialogue is going to be possible given the current format.

    One of the reasons I have rarely posted here in the past is the moderation policy. I thought it was to quick to ban.

    Surely there has got to be a way to allow a very lively decent and still make real and open discussion possible.

    I just don’t know what it is

    peace

  609. 609
    keith s says:

    Box,

    Somehow you added “exist” in your “rewording”…

    Of course I did. Design can’t happen unless a designer exists!

    Are such arguments effective at TSZ?

    Yes, and at UD also.

    I’m signing out.

    Run for cover! The bomb is about to explode!

  610. 610
    rich says:

    Outrage and tone arguments and then running away rather than engaging Keiths. Disappointing, but not surprising, UD.

  611. 611
    rich says:

    fifthmonarchyman – please link to your latest and we’ll have a look? Cheers.

  612. 612
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    My gosh

    Ive been posting about it here for three days. The fact that you are unfamiliar with it proves my point

    peace

  613. 613
    keith s says:

    Box,

    How do you know that there are many possibilities? Simply stating that it is so, doesn’t make it true. Maybe there is only one way for the creator to fashion life. We have no way of knowing.

    Here’s a comment of mine from the TSZ thread that addresses your objection:

    The only designer hypothesis that fits the evidence is one in which the designer mimics (by desire, coincidence, or limitation) the patterns of unguided evolution. The only Rain Fairy hypothesis that fits the evidence is one in which the Rain Fairy mimics (by desire, coincidence, or limitation) the patterns of unguided meteorology. Any reasonable person will reject the Rain Fairy and Designer hypotheses in favor of their competitors, which explain the evidence far, far better.

  614. 614
    bornagain77 says:

    As far as I can tell keith s bomb is nothing more than bluff and bluster based on Theobald’s already discredited site.

    It is the same type of thing with Matzke, all deceptive big talk, but when it comes to specifics of evidence, there is no show.

    Perhaps any of these following points could be addressed honestly by a Darwinist?

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way. – Doug Axe PhD.
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies – October 2010
    Excerpt: “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve”.,,, as stated in regards to the 35 year experimental failure to fixate a single beneficial mutation within fruit flies.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ruit_flies

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

  615. 615
    rich says:

    FMM, is linking to it really that hard? There’s a lot of posts here… I can’t recall them all and may not have read them all.

    Have a good long look at your response and have a word with yourself. I’m still willing to have a look.

  616. 616
    rich says:

    BA77s critique doesn’t bring up any specifics with Keiths argument then tries to bring in a diversion (which DDD is that, again?)

  617. 617
    REC says:

    @572
    gpuccio

    “Again that paper? Are you really convinced that it means something?”

    I don’t recall discussing it with you. Ever. It is quite recent, and my reading of it even more recent. And I am convinced it totally undermines whatever point about superfamilies you think you are making when you retreat to that safe-room.

    Here’s what a reviewer has to say: “The highly sensitive sequence comparison of proteins belonging to the (beta/alpha)8-barrel and the flavodoxin-like fold led to the identification of a protein family that was intermediate between these two superfolds. A closer analysis showed that the mutual similarities were due to a protein fragment consisting of 45 residues. This hypothesis was confirmed by solving the crystal structure of the corresponding domain and subsequent superposition. These results suggest to extend the concept of homology to short building blocks, which might have existed at very early steps of protein evolution.”

    http://f1000.com/prime/718498342

  618. 618
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s claims

    “The only designer hypothesis that fits the evidence is one in which the designer mimics (by desire, coincidence, or limitation) the patterns of unguided evolution.”

    first that statement is a flat out lie!

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-522025

    second, keith s is relying on his false theological presumption of what God would or wouldn’t do in order to try to make his case for Darwinism. ,,,

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521694

  619. 619
    bornagain77 says:

    rich, I am all ears, i.e.

    ‘keith s what no specific citation or calculation? But, since you disown Theobald’s original (statistical significance) calculation, where is the other ’1 in 10^38? peer reviewed bomb (from Theobald) that you are so proud of??? Man dust that peer-reviewed calculation off and shine it up and let us all take a gander at it! What are you so bashful for? ,,, An invitation to dig through Theobald’s garbage dump of unsubstantiated conjectures is hardly the kind of sparkle and bang I would expect from the ‘bomb’ you are so proud of!
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-522025

  620. 620
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    There are a lot of posts

    lots of insults
    lots of talking past each other
    Lots of assuming the wost of the apposition
    Lots of us verses them

    very little civil discussion

    I haven’t developed my argument enough for be able to link to some kind of paper if that is what you are asking for.

    That is what the discussion was supposed to help me do

    My posts started at 96. The sniping at somewhere around 130.

    peace

  621. 621
    Thorton says:

    Fifthmonarchyman your civil tone is appreciated but I for one can’t make the slightest bit of sense from your posts. You keep wanting us to compare the transcendental number Pi with the ID asserted identifiable property of designed objects “CSI.” The two concepts aren’t even in the same league let alone the same ballpark. Maybe you need to rethink exactly what it is you’re trying to say.

  622. 622
    rich says:

    FMM, I’d agree that CSI is not computable, maybe for some different reasons. But as we agree, what does that mean for ID? Surely it looses its “empirical hurdle”?

  623. 623
    vividbleau says:

    Gp re 576

    i don’t think they are interested in a discussion.

    Fifth yes to many insults etc is there an ignore button?

    Vivid

  624. 624
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    Thorton

    If you were interested in discussion you could have answered anyone of the several questions I addressed to you or you could have asked some of your own

    That ship sailed about 200 posts ago.

    peace

  625. 625
    Thorton says:

    fifthmonarchyman

    If you were interested in discussion you could have answered anyone of the several questions I addressed to you or you could have asked some of your own

    To have a reasonable discussion one first has to have a reasonable topic to discuss. Sorry but what you have offered so far on Pi and CSI ain’t it.

    I offer that that as constructive criticism. Whether or not you learn from it is up to you.

  626. 626
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    noted

    Feel free to continue the lofty topic of comparing CSI to a turd to be flushed.

    peace

  627. 627
    ppolish says:

    I used to be a Theistic Darwinist, “Creator breathing life into a few forms” like Darwin himself wrote.

    But ID makes sense. Science to back it up too. If a Bomb ever does destroy ID, I would have no problem going back to Darwinism. Honestly just do not see it happening though.

  628. 628
    keith s says:

    ba77,

    You’re almost as bad as Joe. I haven’t disowned “Theobald’s original calculation”, whatever you think that is.

    As for the source of the 10^38 number, LMGTFY.

  629. 629
    keith s says:

    If a Bomb ever does destroy ID, I would have no problem going back to Darwinism.

    Good, because the bomb is going off in this very thread.

    Honestly just do not see it happening though.

    Then you must know of a refutation of my argument. Please share it, for the sake of all of your comrades who are cowering in the bomb shelter.

  630. 630
    Vishnu says:

    keith s,

    Now, I’, not ID protagonist. But I am very open minded. So…

    Can you please demonstrate and instance where RV+NS is responsible for a single instance of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan?

    Thanks. Much Gusto

  631. 631
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    But ID makes sense. Science to back it up too.

    For the sake of discussion what science would that be? ID had its big chance to present its science almost a decade ago at Kitzmiller v. Dover and face planted miserably. What scientific discoveries has ID made since then? I see the DI created their own phony science lab, published a few more popular press books full of misrepresentations and outright lies. ID also had its web presence dwindle to one backwater discussion site populated with YECs, computer programmers, and the odd scientifically illiterate small appliance repairman.

    In the words of the late Clara Peller, “where’s the beef?”

  632. 632
    Vishnu says:

    Since there is not edit:

    keith s,

    Now, I’m not an ID protagonist. But I am very open minded. So…

    Can you please demonstrate and instance where RV+NS is responsible for a single instance of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan?

    Specific details please about how it/they were cobbled by RV+NS.

    Thanks. Much Gusto

    No. Thank you VERY much.

  633. 633
    keith s says:

    Joe,

    keiths has claimed that gradual evolution does not predict transitional forms.

    Fercrissakes, Joe. What’s the point of outright lying, when everyone can see the evidence for themselves?

    Ditto for your claim that I’ve been talking about ‘evolutionism’.

    And you wonder why people ignore you?

  634. 634
    fifthmonarchyman says:

    right on cue atta boy Thorton

  635. 635
    Thorton says:

    Vishnu

    Can you please demonstrate and instance where RV+NS is responsible for a single instance of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan?

    Science has identified the specific mutations in bats that caused the digit elongation which produced their wings and hence their ability to fly.

    Digital gene expression tag profiling of bat digits provides robust candidates contributing to wing formation
    Wang et al
    BMC Genomics 2010, 11:619

    Abstract:

    As the only truly flying mammals, bats use their unique wing – consisting of four elongated digits (digits II-V) connected by membranes – to power their flight. In addition to the elongated digits II-V, the forelimb contains one shorter digit (digit I) that is morphologically similar to the hindlimb digits. Here, we capitalized on the morphological variation among the bat forelimb digits to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying digit elongation and wing formation. Using next generation sequencing technology, we performed digital gene expression tag profiling (DGE-tag profiling) of developing digits in a pooled sample of two Myotis ricketti and validated our sequencing results using real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of gene expression in the developing digits of two Hipposideros armiger.

    Among hundreds of genes exhibiting significant differences in expression between the short and long digits, we highlight 14 genes most related to digit elongation. These genes include two Tbx genes (Tbx3 and Tbx15), five BMP pathway genes (Bmp3, RGMB, Smad1, Smad4 and Nog), four Homeobox genes (Hoxd8, Hoxd9, Hoxa1 and Satb1), and three other genes (Twist1, Tmeff2 and Enpp2) related to digit malformations or cell proliferation. In addition, our results suggest that Tbx4 and Pitx2 contribute to the morphological similarity and five genes (Acta1, Tnnc2, Atp2a1, Hrc and Myoz1) contribute to the functional similarity between the thumb and hindlimb digits.

    Results of this study not only implicate many developmental genes as robust candidates underlying digit elongation and wing formation in bats, but also provide a better understanding of the genes involved in autopodial development in general.

    Will that do? I can provide others.

  636. 636
    keith s says:

    Vishnu,

    I’m glad to hear that you are an open-minded person.

    Given a choice between two competing hypotheses, one of which explains the evidence literally trillions of times better than the other, which would an open-minded person choose?

    Gracias.

  637. 637
    keith s says:

    Where’s Barry? He issued the call for bombs, so why is he not participating in the attempts at disarming them?

  638. 638
    Vishnu says:

    keith s: Given a choice between two competing hypotheses, one of which explains the evidence literally trillions of times better than the other, which would an open-minded person choose?

    I’m not committed to any particular hypothesis. I’m asking you to defend yours.

    Thanks in advance.

  639. 639
    Vishnu says:

    Keith s,

    Specific details please about how it/they were cobbled by RV+NS.,

    Just in case you forget. It’s those things I’m interesting in.

    Thanks in advance.

    All the best

    V

  640. 640
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, ID did not emerge at the OOL. Its manifestation goes back to the Origin of Universe. And the Empirical Science shows us Fine Tuning. Fine Tuning points towards
    1) God
    2) Chance
    3) MegaVerse/Multiverse/EverythingVerse
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player
    Those 3 cover all the bases. Empirical Evidence says 1 those 3. 2 of 3 ok too. Actually, all 3 could be simultaneously true if Dembski’s definition of “Chance comes from Intelligence” is used.

    Agnostic Leonard Susskind say 3. I believe 1. Or 1&2. Or 1&3. Or 1&2&3.

    God always there. Always/WillBe there.

  641. 641
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s claimed in 460

    “Your spam about p-values above is entirely irrelevant to my argument, because the “one in trillions” claim has nothing to do with p-values.”

    In which I showed keith s that Theobald relied on Fisher faulty p value method
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521867

    to which keith s responded,,

    Theobald uses p-values, like practically every other scientist in the world!
    But he doesn’t use them to establish the 1 in 10^38 number that forms the basis of my “one in trillions” claim.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-521979

    and yet right before the 10^38 number that keith s is so fond of citing, it is found that Theobald himself admits to using Fisher’s methods to try to establish ‘statistical significance’ for the 10^38 number:

    “How close must the measurements be in order to give a strong confirmation?” Scientists answer these questions quantitatively with probability and statistics (Box 1978; Fisher 1990; Wadsworth 1997). To be scientifically rigorous we require statistical significance. Some measurements of a given value match with statistical significance (good), and some do not (bad), even though no measurements match exactly (reality).,,
    So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102).
    under ‘Confirmation’ section
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....tion1.html

    thus to reiterate,,,

    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    p-value
    In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.[1][2] A researcher will often “reject the null hypothesis” when the p-value turns out to be less than a predetermined significance level, often 0.05[3][4] or 0.01. Such a result indicates that the observed result would be highly unlikely under the null hypothesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

    Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis – Casey Luskin November 29, 2010
    Excerpt: National Geographic notes in a subheadline: “Creationism called ‘absolutely horrible hypothesis’ — statistically speaking.” The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.
    Again, if you don’t believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald’s paper had to say (approving the critique!):
    Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that “it is trivial”. It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification. Ignoring the strength of the universality of the genetic code and the commonality of central intermediary metabolism among cells as evidence, Theobald construed a non-issue that the referees of his paper, whoever they may have been, found convincing and novel (!).
    (Comments by William Martin of the University of Duesseldorf in review of Eugene V Koonin and Yuri I Wolf, “The common ancestry of life,” Biology Direct, Vol. 5:64 (2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

    Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – December 1, 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    But Isn’t There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? – Casey Luskin – December 2, 2010
    Excerpt: Dr. Theobald might have had a point, were it not for the fact that:
    (1) Phylogeny and biogeography don’t always agree.
    (2) Phylogeny and paleontology don’t always agree.
    (3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the “predicted” transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection). (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
    (5) “Homologous” structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have “homologous” developmental pathways.
    (6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41111.html

  642. 642
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Thornton, ID did not emerge at the OOL. Its manifestation goes back to the Origin of Universe. And the Empirical Science shows us Fine Tuning.

    So no evidence for the actual design and manufacture of living creatures by an external intelligent agency in the last 3+ billion years life has been on Earth?

  643. 643
    keith s says:

    Vishnu,

    I’m not committed to any particular hypothesis. I’m asking you to defend yours.

    I’ve shown you that my hypothesis is literally trillions of times better than its competitor at explaining the evidence. If that doesn’t count as “defending my hypothesis”, then nothing does.

    Specific details please about how it/they were cobbled by RV+NS.,

    Thorton just directed you to such a case, and scientists are constantly working out new ones. Meanwhile, since you are impartial and not committed to any particular hypothesis, ask an ID proponent to give you “specific details please about how the bat’s wing was cobbled together by the designer”. You will find that unlike evolutionary biologists, IDers can’t give you an answer. They have no idea how their putative designer went about it, and so they can’t offer you any details at all.

    So not only does unguided evolution fit the evidence trillions of times better than ID, it also provides specific details of the kind you asked for, while ID cannot.

    Given a choice between unguided evolution and ID, which hypothesis would an opem-minded person choose?

  644. 644
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, every instance of Life in Earth emerged/emerges from ID per Empirical Science (see fine tuning vid I posted ), It can be Theistic ID or Atheistic ID – Empirical Evidence supports both.

    If I may Appeal to Authority, Leonard Susskind, Genius Physicist, says data can be explained by God. Lots of data. Mountains of evidence.

    By the way, Dembski makes a very strong argument that Chance is emergent from Intelligence in his new book “Being as Communion”. Very profound stuff in there.

  645. 645
    Jagesh Nadu says:

    Hello Barry, I see that my previous comment apparently had no effect on you. Joe is still totally out of control and some other ID advocates aren’t much better.

    bornagain77 said: “I second gppucio, the quality of posts has certainly taken a nose dive. ,,,”

    He/She also said:

    “so rich, do you think matters of science are settled with smart remarks and insults of other people? i.e. was Don Rickles the greatest scientist of all time in your book?

    Myself, I hope Mr. Arrington re-imposes some type of moderation to at least keep UD from becoming no different from youtube comments section.”

    bornagain77 really needs to look at himself and some of the other ID advocates here, especially Joe, when making comments like those. Joe is the worst, but bornagain77 is also guilty of what he complains about. He called Rec a liar for no good reason and has made other derogatory remarks.

    Yes it’s true that the ID opponents have made unkind remarks but I feel that some of the ID advocates here have brought on those remarks by starting the insults or by stubbornly refusing to honestly and relevantly respond to reasonable questions and statements. Some of the ID advocates here are much more in need of strict moderation, or permanent banning in the case of Joe, than the ID opponents are, and all ID advocates should realize that stubbornly and insultingly refusing to demonstrate the efficacy of their claims, such as being able to reliably calculate CSI in biological entities, invites ridicule. Unless and until ID advocates demonstrate the efficacy of their ID claims, ID claims are nothing more than unsupported assertions.

    Joe said: “IDists- “The how comes after we have already determined design exists.””

    ID advocates forcefully claim that design exists and that they have already determined design in many or all things (biological, astronomical, geological, etc.) so shouldn’t ID advocates be anxious to demonstrate that they can reliably determine that design exists in the way that they claim it exists in many or all things by producing calculations of CSI at the very least? Calculating probabilities in coin tosses, Shakespeare’s writings, Poker hands, etc., or baldly asserting that there are trillions of examples of design simply won’t do.

    In response to Thorton, Joe also said:

    [Thorton] Scientist – “OK, let’s test the process on some real world articles”

    [Joe] OK we are waiting. And waiting

    Why are Joe and other ID advocates waiting and waiting for scientists who are either opposed to ID or aren’t interested in it to test and demonstrate ID claims? ID advocates claim to be scientists or to have their own scientists (eg Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzales, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, Lee Spetner, etc.) so what are ID advocates-scientists waiting for?

  646. 646
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Thornton, every instance of Life in Earth emerged/emerges from ID per Empirical Science (see fine tuning vid I posted ), It can be Theistic ID or Atheistic ID – Empirical Evidence supports both.

    I see. So no evidence for the actual design and manufacture of living creatures by an external intelligent agency in the last 3+ billion years life has been on Earth. Just fine tuning to set up the laws of nature then everything else like evolution proceeded unguided.

    If I may Appeal to Authority, Leonard Susskind, Genius Physicist, says data can be explained by God. Lots of data. Mountains of evidence.

    Saying “God can explain it” isn’t evidence. Magic Pixies can explain the evidence just as well. You need to establish a direct cause and effect link.

  647. 647
    keith s says:

    ppolish:

    If I may Appeal to Authority, Leonard Susskind, Genius Physicist, says data can be explained by God. Lots of data. Mountains of evidence.

    ppolish,

    Have you heard of Google? 10 seconds of searching to find this:

    Physicist Leonard Susskind rejects Intelligent Design

  648. 648
    bornagain77 says:

    Jagesh Nadu I did not call REC a Liar, I said that a statement that keith s made was a ‘flat out lie’ and provided a link with citations to show that his statement was a ‘flat out lie’, whether he purposely lied or not only he knows. If he is honest he will refute the citations I provided or he will admit his mistake. Don’t hold your breath for either option.

    I stand by my opinion that moderation needs to ratcheted up a notch to keep this place from becoming no better than youtube..

  649. 649
    Jagesh Nadu says:

    Correction: bornagain77 called keith s a liar for no good reason.

  650. 650
    bornagain77 says:

    as well Jagesh Nadu, you have your empirical priority comp-lately backwards, we know for a fact that intelligence can generate functional information, The probability is 100%. What no one has ever seen is material processes generate functional information. ,,, Thus since functional information is bursting at the seems in life, in every DNA, RNA, and protein molecule, why are Darwinian explanations given a free pass?

    Moreover, ID and Darwinism are both based on the same scientific method of ‘inference to best explanation’

    Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://vimeo.com/32148403

  651. 651
    bornagain77 says:

    once again, I did not call keith s a liar, I said a statement that he made was a ‘flat out lie’

    you claim it was ‘for no good reason’

    and yet I provided citations to show why his statement was a ‘flat out lie’

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-522025

    care to refute those citations?

  652. 652
    keith s says:

    bornagain77,

    10^38 is the number of possible trees that can be constructed out of 30 taxa. 10^38, in case you haven’t noticed, is not a probability. It is considerably larger than 1, which is the maximum value of a probability, as every first-year student of probability knows.

    Besides that, you apparently have no idea what the p-value criticism is actually about. If you did, you would understand that it has no impact on the 10^38 number, and thus no impact on my argument.

    I repeat:

    You might as well hang a sign around your neck reading, “I have no idea what I’m arguing against, but whatever it is, I know it’s wrong!”

    Now, back to ignoring you and Joe until either of you demonstrates some comprehension of what is actually being debated here.

  653. 653
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, I remind you, regardless of the personal attacks keith s made on me for pointing this put to him, keith s was shown to be completely wrong on his claim for ‘p values’ as I have consistently held despite his personal attacks on me:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-522096

  654. 654
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: GP, 219

    >>219 gpuccio October 24, 2014 at 4:41 am

    Andre, Joe:

    Rich does not seem interested in any serious discussion.

    Thorton recycles trivial stereotypes.

    How boring.

    OK, if that is the contribution of the “readmitted” interlocutors, we can really be happy!

    Where are the serious ones?

    I would really appreciate, not necessarily a bomb, but just some debatable argument. Maybe I ask too much. 🙂 >>

    I only add a FTR, just for onlookers:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....formation/

    KF

  655. 655
    ppolish says:

    Yes, Keith, Lennie rejects ID. He also rejects Chance. He is a Multiverse Believer.

    But he states Empirical Evidence can support God as the source of fine tuning. Watch the vid I posted. He rejects chance as quickly as he rejects God, but they are both options supported by evidence. Mountains of evidence.

  656. 656
    rich says:

    Vishnu – Keith has shown one hypothesis to be vastly superior to another. So he has defended it reactive to ID.

  657. 657
    bornagain77 says:

    and yet right before the 10^38 number that keith s is so fond of citing, it is found that Theobald himself admits to using Fisher’s methods to try to establish ‘statistical significance’ for the 10^38 number:

    “How close must the measurements be in order to give a strong confirmation?” Scientists answer these questions quantitatively with probability and statistics (Box 1978; Fisher 1990; Wadsworth 1997). To be scientifically rigorous we require statistical significance. Some measurements of a given value match with statistical significance (good), and some do not (bad), even though no measurements match exactly (reality).,,
    So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102).
    under ‘Confirmation’ section

    Thus keith s you better write Theobald himself and tell him that his method of deriving statistical significance for the 10^38 number by using Fisher p-value method he used has ‘no impact on the 10^38 number’ for deriving its statisticl significance.

    Let me know when he quits laughing at you!

  658. 658
    keith s says:

    KF,

    I would really appreciate, not necessarily a bomb, but just some debatable argument.

    Perhaps you’d like to tackle mine, rather than whistling past the graveyard?

  659. 659
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, without ‘statistical significance’, your 10^38 number is meaningless!

  660. 660
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    But he states Empirical Evidence can support God as the source of fine tuning. Watch the vid I posted. He rejects chance as quickly as he rejects God, but they are both options supported by evidence. Mountains of evidence

    Yet you can’t produce a single piece of this “mountains of evidence” when asked. That doesn’t do much for the credibility of your claim.

  661. 661
    beau says:

    As I’ve labored through these posts I’ve come to one conclusion. Keith S would have no problem showing up at the White House with a water balloon and demanding control of the United States. Before Keith manufactured this weapon of mass destruction I have to assume he successfully robbed a few banks with his finger pistol.

  662. 662
  663. 663
    kairosfocus says:

    KS, All I need to do is what I have done:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....formation/

    That alone gives the lie to a boatload of tired Darwinist and evo mat rhetoric. Where, I need to turn focus back to other things — issues tied to governance here [the election produced a major change] — that need more focus than a wave of recirculated failed talking points.

    When I can see signs that your ilk are at least able to acknowledge the reality of, this DOC file is 349 kbytes of functionally specific complex info, and that a particular protein of say 300 AA bears similar FSCO/I tied to the length and particular AA sequence, then there is a basis for reasonable discussion. KF

  664. 664
    rich says:

    In post 654, KF says:

    “Rich does not seem interested in any serious discussion.”

    And then links to a post with closed comments. How typical, and sadly telling.

    I’ll repeat for the third time the problems with FIASCO:

    *You model spontaneous generation (of text)
    *You don’t account for functionally equivalent variants
    *You can’t specify in anything other than English
    *You wont take up design challenges
    *Non of this has anything to do with life
    *But..but..but..BIG NUMBERS.

    Emperor KF has no clothes. Now here comes the faux outrage..

  665. 665
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, I can not make it much simpler. I’m not a deep person.

    But one eg…Cosmological Constant can be explained by very very very few things. Very very very very to the 120 power few things.

    God is ONE of those things. Along with Chance (what are the odds). And Multiverse.

    “But God is not a “thing””. Yes, grasshopper, you are right. Figure of speech.

  666. 666
    keith s says:

    KF,

    If my argument were actually wrong, there would necessarily be a flaw in it that you could point to. If you could do it, you would. Clearly you can’t.

    It’s okay. No one here actually thought that you’d be able to pull it off anyway.

  667. 667
    rich says:

    And of course as AtBC’s beloved Zachriel, if you allow mutation and selection of words through islands of function (similar to life) you build up something complex quite easily:

    http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/

  668. 668
    Thorton says:

    rich

    In post 654, KF says:

    “Rich does not seem interested in any serious discussion.”

    And then links to a post with closed comments. How typical, and sadly telling.

    Yep. Note that KF and the scroll wheel killer BA77 are the two whining the loudest for a resumption of censorship by UD. Tells you loads about both the fatal weaknesses in their arguments and what kind of brave honest people they are.

  669. 669
    rich says:

    Also, KF, you’ve not actually tackled KeithS argument at all, just tried to change the subject to your own copy and pasted flawed talking points, where comments aren’t allowed. Sadly telling.

    Would this be a DDD?

  670. 670
    tjguy says:

    Keith S says:

    tjguy:

    Where did the first life come from that enabled this whole process to get started.

    Without a totally materialistic origin of life, you got nuthin’!

    tjguy,

    To the contrary. My argument doesn’t depend at all on a materialist explanation of life’s origin.

    I’m arguing that after life got started — however that happened — the subsequent process was unguided, as the evidence shows.

    You missed my point Keith.

    I said “you got nuthin'” because until you can show us that life can actually evolve naturally from chemicals like you believe, your process of evolution doesn’t even have a chance to get started.

    Now, if you are going to allow for a supernatural cause for life’s origin, then that’s a different story. I would assume that in that instance, you would also be open to a role for the designer in the evolution of life as well, right?

  671. 671
    tjguy says:

    Here ia an article about cladistics on creation.com that might be of some interest in this debate with Keith S.

    http://creation.com/cladistics

  672. 672
    rich says:

    tjguy plays “moving goalposts” which DDD is that?

    So your fine with NDE, its just OOL that’s an issue for you? Good enough for me.

  673. 673
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Thornton, I can not make it much simpler. I’m not a deep person.

    But one eg…Cosmological Constant can be explained by very very very few things. Very very very very to the 120 power few things.

    That’s not true. All we have determined is that life as we know it evolved to fit the parameters we have. It’s entirely possible that slightly different parameters would result in slightly different life. A sample set of one isn’t conclusive of anything.

    For the record I have no problem with you or anyone else’s religious beliefs. I think it’s great and more power to you if they makes you a better person. But trying to scientifically justify your religion is a losing proposition.

  674. 674
    Thorton says:

    Yes, the lack pf edit function to fix typos is tres irritating.

  675. 675
    Thorton says:

    Of! of of of of of. 🙁

  676. 676
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich: With all due respect, I don’t have time for more endless loops just now with those who give repeated, even insistent evidence of refusal to address patent facts: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....formation/ . KF

    PS: issues relevant to design theory operate at one or more of roots of the physical cosmos, OOL and origin of major body plans. In each case, issues connected to FSCO/I apply. Gotta run.

  677. 677
    keith s says:

    beau:

    As I’ve labored through these posts I’ve come to one conclusion. Keith S would have no problem showing up at the White House with a water balloon and demanding control of the United States. Before Keith manufactured this weapon of mass destruction I have to assume he successfully robbed a few banks with his finger pistol.

    Beau,

    UD ain’t the White House. It’s something more like this.

    And if my argument is as ineffectual as a finger pistol, why aren’t you first in line to rebut it?

    P.S. By the way, you can thank Barry for the weapons metaphor. I’m just running with it. Pretty funny how it’s backfiring (so to speak) on him, isn’t it?

  678. 678
    rich says:

    Yes, KF, You persistently refuse to address these facts:

    *You model spontaneous generation (of text)
    *You don’t account for functionally equivalent variants
    *You can’t specify in anything other than English
    *You wont take up design challenges
    *Non of this has anything to do with life
    *But..but..but..BIG NUMBERS.

    You’ve even made a post that you can keep pointing to where these aren’t mentioned, let alone addressed. Sadly telling. Emperor KF has no clothes.

  679. 679
    bornagain77 says:

    Thorton falsely claims :

    “All we have determined is that life as we know it evolved to fit the parameters we have.”

    actually Thorton, nor anyone else, has determined any such thing! although thorton is right to think that life is ‘optimized’

    Seeing the Natural World With a Physicist’s Lens – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11.....038;st=cse

    He is completely wrong to believe Darwinian processes achieved that optimization:

    Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration
    Excerpt: An illustration of the possible mutations available to an RNA molecule. The blue lines represent mutations that will not change its function (phenotype), the grey are mutations to an alternative phenotype with slightly higher fitness and the red are the ‘fittest’ mutations. As there are so few possible mutations resulting in the fittest phenotype in red, the odds of this mutation are a mere 0.15%. The odds for the slightly fitter mutation in grey are 6.7% and so this is far more likely to fix, and thus to be found and survive, even though it is much less fit than the red phenotype.,,,
    By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the ‘fitness’ of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-02-e.....ccess.html

    This following headline sums it up very nicely:

    Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014
    http://crev.info/2014/02/fitte.....er-arrive/

    further note as to ‘optimality’:

    Optimal Design of Metabolism – Dr. Fazale Rana – July 2012
    Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition.
    http://www.reasons.org/article.....metabolism

  680. 680
    rich says:

    There’s a worrying trend in ID of talking about doing something, having done something or being able to do something, without actually doing it.

    It fools no-one.

  681. 681
    keith s says:

    KF, to Rich:

    With all due respect, I don’t have time for more endless loops just now with those who give repeated, even insistent evidence of refusal to address patent facts…

    Hey guys, make room for KF! He’s running for the bomb shelter.

  682. 682
    Thorton says:

    rich

    There’s a worrying trend in ID of talking about doing something, having done something or being able to do something, without actually doing it

    Trend? It’s been their sole mode of operation for the last two decades.

  683. 683
    keith s says:

    tjguy,

    You missed my point Keith.

    Um, no, I refuted it.

    I said “you got nuthin’” because until you can show us that life can actually evolve naturally from chemicals like you believe, your process of evolution doesn’t even have a chance to get started.

    How life began is a separate question from how it evolved afterwards. This is easy to see. All four combinations are logically possible:

    1. Life was created and evolution was guided.
    2. Life was created and evolution was unguided.
    3. Life arose naturally and evolution was guided.
    4. Life arose naturally and evolution was unguided.

    The evidence being discussed in this thread rules out #1 and #3.

    Now, if you are going to allow for a supernatural cause for life’s origin, then that’s a different story. I would assume that in that instance, you would also be open to a role for the designer in the evolution of life as well, right?

    Sure, I’d be open to it if the evidence were there. Problem is, the evidence rules it out by a factor of trillions to one.

  684. 684
    bornagain77 says:

    Problem is, the evidence rules it out by a factor of trillions to one.

    that is a ‘flat out lie’

  685. 685
    bornagain77 says:

    keiths you have clearly, and patiently, been shown why you number is bogus, yet you continue to repeating the claim as if it were true. I can only conclude that you are not just merely mistaken, but are being purposely, and stubbornly, misleading in spite of countervailing evidence on the table!

    Good bye sir, I’ll leave you be to your false bravado,,,

    i.e. “Keith S would have no problem showing up at the White House with a water balloon and demanding control of the United States. Before Keith manufactured this weapon of mass destruction I have to assume he successfully robbed a few banks with his finger pistol.”

  686. 686
    keith s says:

    ba77,

    Understand what’s being debated first. Then we can discuss it.

  687. 687
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, I don’t expect you to watch this long vid by Cosmologist Hugh Ross, but I have. And Genesis nails it. An ancient text nails it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ata_player

    Mountains of evidence. Awesome Science.

  688. 688
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Mountains of evidence. Awesome Science.

    Mountains of imaginary evidence. No science at all in Genesis. Sorry.

  689. 689
    keith s says:

    ppolish,

    I’ve watched both Susskind videos from beginning to end, and I have no idea how you can conclude that there’s any support for ID, in any form, in either of them.

  690. 690
    Jagesh Nadu says:

    As a staunch Christian I am embarrassed and greatly discouraged by the bad behavior of some of the ID advocates here who tout themselves as good Christians, and by the acceptance or encouragement of that bad behavior by other ID advocates.

    bornagain77 is lying about whether he called keith s a liar. How he/she can morally justify denying it is beyond me. bornagain77 also makes other unwarranted insulting remarks and tries to divert attention away from his bad behavior and the bad behavior of other ID advocates by flooding his/her comments with things that are irrelevant to the topic at hand or to any of the points I have made.

    Joe is foul and intolerable and is a major detriment to the ID cause and this blog.

    kairosfocus is in dire need of a very large dose of humility and contrition, along with the realization that dictatorial proclamations, constantly repeated insults, fire and brimstone preaching, and massive amounts of non-demonstrated assertions are not the proper way to gain scientific acceptance of ID.

    Some other ID advocates should also take a good look at their behavior. Good Christians don’t behave like some of you do.

  691. 691
    ppolish says:

    Keith, what are the 3 explanations that can explain the evidence of Fine Tuning per Dr Susskind?
    1) God (ie ID) – Dr Susskind rejects
    2) Chance – Dr Susskind rejects
    3) Multiverse – Dr Susskind accepts. His only choice really. Holding his nose as he accepts the multiverse:)

    I did not state Susskind supports ID. I said he said the evidence can be explained by God.

    Although note the way he uses “blueprints” to explain how his Multiverse works. To me, “blueprint” is design talk:)

  692. 692
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Keith, what are the 3 explanations that can explain the evidence of Fine Tuning per Dr Susskind?
    1) God (ie ID) – Dr Susskind rejects
    2) Chance – Dr Susskind rejects
    3) Multiverse – Dr Susskind accepts. His only choice really. Holding his nose as he accepts the multiverse:)

    You keep forgetting the fourth option, the one that most all of science agrees on – The universe isn’t fine tuned for life but rather life developed to fit the parameters of the universe.

    Google “Douglas Adams puddle analogy” for a clearer uderstanding.

  693. 693
    ppolish says:

    Yes, this Universe is fine tuned for puddles. How did a Universe fine tuned for puddles emerge? Very deep mystery of Physics for sure. The answer is not “42” or “Sorry for the inconvenience”. Modern Science has ruled those 2 out.

    But the puddle still wonders.

  694. 694
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Yes, this Universe is fine tuned for puddles. How did a Universe fine tuned for puddles emerge?

    The puddle adapts to fit the hole in the ground extremely precisely. The hole wasn’t specially designed precisely for that exact puddle.

    Life fits this universe like the puddle fits the hole. This universe wasn’t designed for this specific life.

    Think.

  695. 695
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, the hole fits the puddle to an extraordinary degree. An incredibly incredibly precise fit. That is the fine tuning that has Physicists stumped.

    The fit is so precise that Science has ruled out chance. Chance can not give a fit that is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 precise. Science has eliminated chance for the most part. God could do it, but let’s not go there. And a Multiverse where anything and everything happens could explain it.

    That is why many Scientists are grudgingly accepting a Multiverse. They have no choice. No free will lol.

  696. 696
    Thorton says:

    ppolish

    Thornton, the hole fits the puddle to an extraordinary degree. An incredibly incredibly precise fit. That is the fine tuning that has Physicists stumped.

    LOL! Talk about unclear on the concept…

    Try this experiment. Go into your yard and dig a hole of any shape at all. Fill the hole with water. Try it with another shaped hole. Then another. See how well the water fits the hole each time. Let us know how the experiment turns out.

  697. 697
    ppolish says:

    Thornton, the “Naturalness Problem”, the “Fine Tuning Problem”, is THE major mystery in Physics today. Attempting to minimize it with appeals to Vogon Poetry or back yard hole digging is fine I guess. But don’t expect to find ANY support of those appeals in modem Physics. I mean c’mon.

  698. 698
    Vishnu says:

    Thorton: Let me try ID-Creationist “logic”

    Let me try blind-watchmaker logic…

    I have a car. I will take me from Los Angeles to New York. Therefore, by extrapolation, it will take me to London.

    Speaking as an engineer, I say…

    Prove it

  699. 699
    keith s says:

    Thorton,

    In fairness to ppolish, there are quite a few reputable physicists and cosmologists who see the fine-tuning problem, particularly of the cosmological constant, as genuine.

    That doesn’t mean that ppolish’s God-of-the-gaps solution is sensible, of course, but there is a problem to be solved, and we don’t yet have a fully satisfying solution for it as we do in the case of the “mysterious” puddle problem.

  700. 700
    keith s says:

    ppolish:

    Keith, what are the 3 explanations that can explain the evidence of Fine Tuning per Dr Susskind?
    1) God (ie ID) – Dr Susskind rejects
    2) Chance – Dr Susskind rejects
    3) Multiverse – Dr Susskind accepts.

    The multiverse explanation also involves chance. I can elaborate on that if necessary.

    I did not state Susskind supports ID. I said he said the evidence can be explained by God.

    Literally anything can be explained by invoking an omnipotent God. That’s one of the reasons that God-of-the-gaps arguments are so tempting to theists, yet so useless in practice. God simply becomes a placeholder for “we don’t know”, and when we find out, God must shrink a little more to fit in the remaining gaps.

    Although note the way he uses “blueprints” to explain how his Multiverse works. To me, “blueprint” is design talk:)

    Not the way Susskind uses it. He is merely drawing a distinction between unrealized possibilities and realized ones.

  701. 701
    ppolish says:

    Keith, the gaps are growing more numerous. Getting bigger and bigger. Science has always been wonderful for revealing God’s Designs. Planck sensed the “Mind in the Matrix” and Einstein longed to understand the thoughts of “The Old One”. Every day we learn more.

  702. 702
    keith s says:

    About a year and a half ago, vjtorley published a response to the argument I make in this thread (and in my OP at TSZ). Vincent is one of my favorite IDers, and in particular I appreciate the efforts he makes to understand and fairly represent the arguments of his opponents.

    Vincent’s post is here:
    Is Darwinism a better explanation of life than Intelligent Design?

    I couldn’t respond at the time, having been banned by Barry, but I look forward to responding to Vincent’s points, in this thread, over the next couple of days.

  703. 703
    keith s says:

    Forgot to add the URL to the first link:

    my OP at TSZ

  704. 704
    keith s says:

    Former commenter william_spearshake requested that I post a link to the following comment:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ment-55774

  705. 705
    kairosfocus says:

    Onlookers: I will again draw attention to the basic, readily observed phenomenon, FSCO/I . . . long since identified as pivotal in the 1970’s by Orgel and Wicken:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....formation/

    So long as ID objectors refuse to acknowledge that this exists (and dismissals of text strings miss the fact that DNA is an object code text string, also proteins are 3-d fold and function strings . . . ), then further attempted discussion is pointless.

    The issue at that level is ideologically driven, selective hyperskepticism leading to a patent case of the fallacy of the closed mind.

    Such cannot be reasoned with, only exposed.

    (Perhaps, enough of a sense of duty to truth, accuracy and fairness can be awakened that there will be a change of heart and mind; but until then, attempted debate is fruitless. Now, I have a new Govt to get back to advising. [KS & TH et al, there is such a thing as the real world out there, and as my Mom loved to quote, the Greeks say, a word to the wise is sufficient. I have given that word, repeatedly. If you cannot bring yourselves to acknowledge the existence and basic characteristics/facts about FSCO/I, then your problem and quarrel is with reason and with experience, not with Science.])

    KF

  706. 706
    gpuccio says:

    REC:

    I referred to the simple fact that you had already mentioned it in a previous discussion.

    It is true that I had not answered then for two reasons: I have not access to the full article, and it seemed obvious to me that it was not relevant at all to the discussion.

    However, I will discuss it now, given the lack of any other interesting discussion at the moment. I will comment on what I can see from the abstract and from the brief comment you linked now.

    The point is: having found some limited structural affinity between two existing superfamily is no evidence of a similar sequence derivation by gradual functional random transformations, which is the point I am interested in. At most, such observations (indeed, one at present) could be considered a very indirect sign of common descent of the two superfamilies, which is not a problem at all for me, or simply of common functional restraints.

    The comment says:

    “A closer analysis showed that the mutual similarities were due to a protein fragment consisting of 45 residues. This hypothesis was confirmed by solving the crystal structure of the corresponding domain and subsequent superposition. These results suggest to extend the concept of homology to short building blocks, which might have existed at very early steps of protein evolution”

    Now, I have no problem in recognizing “building blocks” in proteins. As said, that is compatible with many different explanations. At most, if confirmed, they can be a sign of common descent and/or common design.

    If you can show that those “simpler” building blocks are functional, naturally selectable, and deconstructable in simple enough steps, and in a sufficient number of steps, to trace a RV+NS path to some true example of functional complexity, that could be a start. Good luck.

  707. 707
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I note DDD #12 on selective hyperskepticism, and highlight the problem of the fallacy of the closed, ideologised mind:

    CLOSED-MINDEDNESS*: Stubbornly irrational, question-begging resistance to correction and/or alternative views. (Cf. a typical turnabout accusation on this, here.)

    This fallacy manifests itself in a habitual pattern of thought, feelings and argument that is:

    (a) question-beggingly committed to and/or

    (b) indoctrinated into thinking in the circle of a particular view or position and/or

    (c) blindly adherent to “the consensus” or vision and school of thought or paradigm of a particular set of authorities. [NB*: This last includes today’s new Magisterium: “Science.”]

    As a result,

    (d) the victim of closed-mindedness becomes unwarrantedly (i.e. fallaciously and often abusively) resistant to new or alternative ideas, information or correction.

    (NB: Cf. discussions on belief, knowledge, warrant and justification here, here [an excellent introductory lecture note], here, here, here, here and here [technical].)

    That is, it is not a matter of mere disagreement that is at stake here, but of

    (e) stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to be corrected or to entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought.

    In extreme cases,

    (f) the closed minded person who has access to power or influence may engage in the willfully deceptive (and even demonic) practice of actively suppressing the inconvenient truth that s/he knows or should know.

    (By contrast, a properly educated person is open-minded but critically aware: s/he is aware of the possibility and prevalence of error, and so (i) habitually investigates and then (ii) accurately, objectively and fairly describes major alternative views, fact claims and lines of argument on a topic, (iii) comparing them on congruence to his/her real-world experience and that of others s/he knows and respects, general factual correctness, logical coherence and degree of explanatory power; thus (iv) holds a personal view that results from such a process of comparative difficulties, while (v) recognising and respecting that on major matters of debate or controversy, different people will hold different views.)

    [NB: DDD 12 has the onward links and the wider briefing on selective hyperskepticism and its cure.]

  708. 708
    gpuccio says:

    keith s:

    The situation is very simple. As you know, I have commented extensively on you “argument” in the past. I find it irrelevant, wrong and arrogant. And I have explained why. I will not do it again.

    You disagree with my arguments, exactly as I disagree with your. Why am I not surprised?

    You seem to believe that the fact that I, or anyone else, has not made arguments against your argument with which you agree is evidence that your argument has not been debunked, and that it is the bomb everyone is looking for. That tells much about your logic and your personality. But again, why am I not surprised?

    You are perfectly entitled to believe all those things. We are perfectly entitled to ignore your beliefs.

    Is that clear enough?

  709. 709
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the modern anglophone school of evidence, as clipped in DDD12 from opening remarks in his classic Treatise on Evidence, Vol I:

    Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.

    Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd.

    The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.

    The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.

    By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

    The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added.]

    A further word to the wise.

    (I suspect those indulging closed mindedness, disregard for truth, accuracy and fairness not to mention playing turnabout rhetorical talking point games regarding FSCO/I do not recognise how they are going to look in the end in the cold clear light of day.)

  710. 710
    kairosfocus says:

    GP, well said, I gotta go. KF

  711. 711
    gpuccio says:

    Jagesh Nadu:

    I have no advice to give anyone about their behaviour. I certainly agree that there is no need to be rude (from both parts) even if some strong intellectual confrontation can certainly be fine.

    However, I would like to remind you that I have given explicit computations of CSI in the biological context, and that the only discussion in this thread about them has been some brief misrepresentation, essentially offensive in its gross lack of any logic or method, and especially of the simple quality of trying to understand what the other person is saying.

    That, while rich s goes on stating that nobody has countered his wonderful argument which humiliates ID and IDists, which is not true. For him, anythinh about which he does not agree simply does not exist.

    This is not a discussion. This is a stupid war (am I being rude if I call it stupid? I think I am being charitable). The only reasonable thing is to ignore it.

    But the same persons are ready to comment that if I ignore it it’s because IDists only want to discuss between themselves, and accept no criticism, and blah blah blah.

    That is false. I have had long and wonderful discussions here with many serious interlocutors, like Mark Frank, Piotr, wd400, REC and many others. For years. I have debated in detail at TSZ and other blogs of the other field, and with TSZ I have also entertained a long parallel discussion and challenge. With great respect form my part, and from many of them (not all).

    There is a big difference between a serious discussion and the blind attacks that these readmitted people are implementing here. A difference which, for me, is of great importance.

  712. 712
    Box says:

    Keith’s “bomb”:

    p1: We observe X
    p2: Unguided evolution theory predicts X
    p3: A designer can produce X but also trillions alternatives to X
    p4: Unguided evolution and a designer can both produce X
    Conclusion: Unguided evolution theory is trillions of times better at explaining X.
    – – – –

    Keith’s bomb doesn’t go off for multiple reasons:

    Premise 4 necessarily guarantees the conclusion that unguided evolution (natural forces) are the better explanation.

    WJM #476: If we ASSUME natural forces are CAPABLE of painting the Mona Lisa, then of course natural forces are the better explanation. Keiths doesn’t seem to understand that IF natural forces can plausibly produce **whatever** artifact is in question, even ID admits that natural forces is the best available explanation.
    (..) Keiths insists upon assuming something that makes “natural forces” the better explanation in every single case of a specific unknown cause. He’s loaded his argument with a premise that necessarily guarantees his conclusion.

    Secondly, the assumption that unguided evolution can produce X – in effect the assumption that natural forces can produce Orgel’s CSI – is contrary to the evidence. The main question posed in the OP is to provide a single example of such an event. For no good reason Keiths asks us to ignore this devastating fact.

    No grounding whatsoever for “trillion” in premise 3. We have no way of knowing how many options are available for a designer.

    The conclusion doesn’t follow.

    WJM #467: What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

    Box #472: Is it unlikely that Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, because he could have painted a trillion of other paintings? The fact that there were many options for Leonardo seems totally unrelated to the question if he is a likely cause or not. Much more relevant is the question: is Leonardo capable of painting the Mona Lisa?

  713. 713

    keiths said:

    My argument demonstrates that ID has less than a one in a trillion chance of being true.

    I agree with your conclusion under the premises you’ve stated – that we assume both natural forces and design are capable of producing the artifact in question. “Natural forces” would be the better explanation. I think all ID proponents would agree with that conclusion under the given premises.

    If you think that’s “entirely trivial”, well, you always were an odd bird.

    It’s trivial because the exact same “argument” works for any artifact you can name. If we assume natural forces and design can plausibly generate the Mona Lisa, a fully functional battleship or the novel War & Peace, then it is a trillion times more likely that natural forces created those artifacts (limited to whatever collection of interactions & tendencies make it plausible) because design had countless other options. ID already stipulates agreement with you given your premises.

    To others here it is a bomb that needs to be defused. Can you help them, or are you bailing out?

    Which others? As far as I can tell, nobody on the ID side considers your “argument” a “bomb”.

    Nobody on the ID side considers your argument a bomb because it assumes the very thing the “bomb” comment by Mr. Arrington challenges – that Darwinists should demonstrate or prove in some way that natural forces are a plausible cause of the artifacts in question. All you do is assume that challenge met to reach a trivial conclusion IDists already stipulate.

    Please try to understand this point, keiths. Your argument assumes the very thing the bomb comment challenges. Mr. Arrington was referring to a “science bomb” that would demonstrate natural forces up to the task; your argument simply assumes this very point, and then reaches a logical conclusion nobody disagrees with given your premises.

  714. 714
    Box says:

    WJM #713,
    William, you point out that Keiths argument fails because ID already stipulated agreement with Keiths conclusion given his premises. Surely that suffices to end discussion.

    However I’m a bit confused about your position wrt Keiths’ “trillion” and how this finds its way into the conclusion. I don’t think it makes much sense (see post #712). Do we differ in opinion?

  715. 715

    Box @714,

    No, I’m just stipulating agreement with his “trillions” number because it’s irrelevant. Even if there was only one option that was open to design, and that was the same way that it is assumed nature did it (plausibly), nature would still be the better explanation under his premises. 1 design option or trillions makes no difference. If nature can plausibly generate the artifact, it’s always the better explanation.

    As you correctly pointed out, though, he has no basis for arriving at that number.

  716. 716
    Joe says:

    Unguided evolution is by far the worst attempt to explain the diversity of life because A) it cannot account for prokaryotes and B) given prokaryotes it cannot explain anything but prokaryotes.

    keiths is juts a confused little coward.

  717. 717
    Joe says:

    keiths has claimed that gradual evolution does not predict transitional forms.

    What’s the point of outright lying, when everyone can see the evidence for themselves?

    And I welcome them to see that you said that there wouldn’t be a smooth blending of characteristics. Transitional forms offer a smmoth blending of characteristics.

    So either you are a liar or you are ignorant.

    Ditto for your claim that I’ve been talking about ‘evolutionism’.

    Unguided evolution is evolutionism you twit.

    And you wonder why people ignore you?

    Only cowardly liars and losers ignore me, keiths.

  718. 718
    Joe says:

    Jagesh Nadu:

    Joe is foul and intolerable and is a major detriment to the ID cause and this blog.

    LoL! @ the ignorant dipstick!

    1- I am not a christian.

    2- My responses are tamer than the trash I have been responding to.

    Why is JN such a narrow-minded chump?

  719. 719
    Joe says:

    There’s a sickening trend in unguided evolution of talking about doing something, having done something or being able to do something, without actually doing it.

  720. 720
    Joe says:

    rich:

    Keith has shown one hypothesis to be vastly superior to another.

    Only a complete dishonest moron would say something like that. BTW keiths never presented any hypthesis

  721. 721
    Joe says:

    hypothesis

  722. 722
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    Gradual evolution doesn’t predict a smooth blending of traits. Where did you get that idea?

    Darwin 1859 and every other subsequent incantation of natural selection and drift. Only saltation avoids it. Are you a saltationist? How does that square with gradual evolution?

    Transitional forms, keiths.

    Also, the loss of traits is not a problem for nested hierarchies. The common ancestor of today’s cat species lost its sweet receptor millions of years ago, but that doesn’t prevent us from placing the cats properly in the tree.

    Not all trees are nested hierarchies. You are confusing the fact that a nested hierarchy can be drawn as a tree with any tree being a nested hierarchy.

    Denton 1985 refuted your argument well before you made it. But now you have proven that you don’t understand the concept of nested hierarchies.

    That said, unguided evolution can’t even get beyond the level of prokaryotes so any tree that includes eukaryotes cannot be the result of unguided evolution.

    Nice try though. I am sure you will ignore that refutation and continue to blather on.

    There you have it- keiths sed unguided evolution does not predict a smooth blending of traits, and that is what transitional forms exhibit. That means keiths is saying that gradual evolution doesn’t predict transitional forms.

    And now he doesn’t realize that unguided evolution is evolutionsim. Talk about being totally ignorant or very dishonest.

  723. 723
    drc466 says:

    Jagesh Nadu – As an FYI, you’re not fooling anyone. If you can read thru the above 700 posts and claim that the ID advocates are the ones guilty of bad behavior, you’re clearly biased. Doing the whole “as an [x], I’m appalled by my side’s behavior” works better when there aren’t several hundred counter-examples for all to see. For the future, it would help you make your case if you demonstrate support for and/or evidence of the position and qualities you claim to advocate. Instead, all of your posts consist of nothing but accusations against character with a healthy dose of misquoting and one-sided advocacy.

    If, by some miracle of fate, you are actually what you claim to be (snort), I suggest you take a good look at the beam in your eye before pointing out motes. Also – excessive class guilt is not very productive and blinds you to the weaknesses in others not of your “group”, you might want to work on that, too.

  724. 724
    Joe says:

    Jagesh Nadu is just another troll.

  725. 725
    Box says:

    WJM @715,

    WJM: No, I’m just stipulating agreement with his “trillions” number because it’s irrelevant.

    The high number is indeed a flaw of minor importance in Keiths reasoning.

    WJM: Even if there was only one option that was open to design, and that was the same way that it is assumed nature did it (plausibly), nature would still be the better explanation under his premises. 1 design option or trillions makes no difference. If nature can plausibly generate the artifact, it’s always the better explanation.

    This is the main issue. I fully agree. The conclusion is assumed in the premise. And the OP challenges us to demonstrate or prove the premise – not baselessly assuming its truth, as Keiths asks us to do.

    WJM: As you correctly pointed out, though, he has no basis for arriving at that number.

    And I hope that you also agree that – even if the “trillion” is correct – it should not find its way into the conclusion as it did. Like you have stated before:

    WJM #467: What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

  726. 726
    Axel says:

    Jagesh Nadu, you seem to believe that the young child’s version of Christ as ‘gentle Jesus meek and mild’ is the whole story, whens Scripture informs us that it was manifestly not. Jesus, after all, is our supreme exemplar and model for our own behaviour.

    I don’t believe a more consistently roughly-spoken person figures in any literature, even fiction, than Christ, himself. Honeyed words and sweet-talking was a hallmark of the Pharisees, and from the Psalmists’ days and doubtless before, a mark of the ruthless miscreant.

    What our lads and lasses are dealing with are people who believe that the results of mathematical calculations are negotiable. If they don’t fit their world-view, they will use them to earn their living, but airily continue to ignore their ineluctably annihilating implications for their materialist world-view.

    In such a situation, Jesus allowed no argument, still less, back-chat, because he knew that he was in possession of he fulness of truth, and had a limited time to inform those with ears to hear. Moreover, like our spokespeople, he knew that his opponents, with rare exceptions, were no-hopers – without ears to hear. To these, he responded somewhat more than roughly with stinging and withering invective.

    Since this board deals with matters, in principle, less directly affecting our immortal souls, and our knowledge generally falls a very long way short of omniscience, our spokespersons’ diatribes are much more tempered. Nevertheless, the latter are well justified wherever opponents’ arguments ignore unambiguous empirical evidence – and above all, when they demonstrate an absolute indifference to mathematical truths, which are ‘a priori’ truths.

    The plain fact of the matter is that theism has been MATHEMATICALLY proven in a number of ways, and it’s high time the hegemony of atheist imposters in Academia was put in the trash-can of history. 80 years plus is far, far too long to have waited, particularly with regard to simple deism and intelligent design.

  727. 727
    Joe says:

    William J Murray:

    As far as I can tell, nobody on the ID side considers your “argument” a “bomb”.

    It is a bomb and it blew up in his face!

  728. 728
    Thorton says:

    Vishnu whined that there are no papers with the detail of how RV+NS created a new feature.

    I linked him to the paper on mutations responsible for bat digit evolution and he suddenly went quiet on the subject.

    It always happens that way with Creationists, dunnit? 🙂

  729. 729
    Joe says:

    thorton the cowardly equivocator strikes again.

    Why do evos think that every example of evolution supports natural selection? Why are they so ignorant of what is being debated?

  730. 730
    drc466 says:

    keith s,

    You have been repeatedly shown why your nested heirarchy claims are fallacious, and have been debunked and responded to multiple times in multiple locations (ref posts 44, 440, 443, 468, 543, etc.). To which your response has been, basically, “la-la-la, I can’t hear you over my ticking bomb!”

    I don’t expect you to respond to this one last attempt, either, but let me point out one or two last major flaws in your argument for any bystanders still sludging through all this:
    1) There is no consensus tree. Your response to this was “Yes, there is” – without any link or reference to where that consensus tree might be. If you refer to the Theobald paper of which you are so proud, you’ll notice that he refers to several different trees, most of which are at least 40+ years old. So if he was aware of one, he didn’t use it! And if there were a consensus tree – why are there so many ongoing efforts to build one? And why so many papers discussing the problems in creating a tree?
    2) The incomplete trees that exist are “highly congruent” because they use the exact same primary grouping criteria. You make a big deal about how the different trees based on different datasets are highly congruent (which refutes your “consensus tree” claim, btw), without acknowledging that the high-congruence is due to the fact that all trees uses the same criteria down to a point that of course they are congruent! It is practically a tautology that the trees differ where the criteria for placement differ. Since the criteria for placement only differ at the very tips of the trees, “high congruence” has already been established! Everyone uses the same criteria for Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order – once we’ve set those up, we’re guaranteed “highly congruent”.
    3) The nested heirarchies developed are not based on hard-and-fast criteria, but “best fit”. Quick – create all the “objective nested heirarchies” for the following: egg-laying poisonous lizards, live-birth poisonous lizards, egg-laying non-poisonous lizards, live-birth non-poisonous lizard, egg-laying poisonous snakes, live-birth poisonous snakes, egg-laying non-poisonous snakes, live-birth non-poisonous snakes. Oh, and throw in the ovoviviparous ones too. How congruent are your trees? Why does a tree that supposedly prioritizes reproductive methodology (marsupial v. placental, e.g.) not prioritize egg-laying v. live-birth when it comes to reptiles? Should egg-laying lizards and egg-laying snakes be closer relatives than egg-laying and live-birth snakes? Going back to point #2 above – these trees with supposedly different datasets all use the exact same basic criteria, which is why they all place sugar gliders and flying squirrels based on reproduction, despite all their other morphological similarities!
    4) Molecular Trees don’t exist. You make a lot of noise about how morphological and molecular based trees are highly congruent. But there are, in point of fact, no trees based entirely on molecular criteria. As pointed out in #2 above, all trees use the same primary criteria – then molecular data is evaluated to try to resolve some of the conflicts at the tips. As pointed out by ba77 et. al. in some of the links above, these molecular analyses are rarely helpful and often contradictory. However, since we’ve already stolen the “highly congruent” base in #2, who cares!
    5) Assuming Intelligently-designed objects have equal possibility to form non-nested heirarchies is false. Walk into Walmart. Check out how they have all the (intelligently-designed) products grouped. Go to Target/Meijer/Kmart/JCPenney etc. (fill-in local department store chain here). Oddly enough, you’ll find that their “nested heirarchies” are “highly congruent” despite being formed from “different datasets”. You can do the same with any and every man-made object in existence. Trying to insist that there is some equal possibility that non-evolved objects should fall into some type of truly random intermixture of form and function that doesn’t fit an objective nested heirarchy is ludicrous!

    And I haven’t even touched on the facts that convergent evolution = busted tree, that trees of life are built on differences and discontinuities as much as similarities, that evolution doesn’t necessarily mandate a true nested heirarchy, that the gaps in most trees are evidence against evolution, or that there exist chimera-like animals (duck-billed platypus, anyone?) that appear designed solely for the purpose of disproving evolution and the whole concept of “trees of life”!

    Anyway – I don’t expect you to find any of the above compelling, but perhaps in a moment of clarity and rationality you’ll understand why those of us who think logically find your bomb to be a firecracker – and a dud, at that.

  731. 731
    Thorton says:

    Vishnu

    Let me try blind-watchmaker logic…

    I have a car. I will take me from Los Angeles to New York. Therefore, by extrapolation, it will take me to London.

    This vehicle could do it. Also a regular Land Rover could do it back when Pangaea was still intact.

    Feel free to explain the magic barrier that prevent microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones. No one else here can.

    Speaking as an engineer

    Heh, another Creationist engineer. That explains the scientific ignorance and arrogance.

  732. 732
    Thorton says:

    ID-Creationists have nothing to fear, Chubby Joke Gallien is on the job!

    You guys don’t know how lucky you are to have a man of Chub’s girth, er, caliber on your side. 🙂

  733. 733
    logically_speaking says:

    Thorton,

    “The puddle adapts to fit the hole in the ground extremely precisely. The hole wasn’t specially designed precisely for that exact puddle.

    Life fits this universe like the puddle fits the hole. This universe wasn’tdesigned for this specific life”.

    This is a terrible example, the puddle doesn’t adapt to the hole at all it simply follows the Law of gravity and the path of least resistants. Which means it obeys something that existed before either the hole or puddle exists. That’s fine tuning right there, if gravity wasn’t there first you would have no puddle example.

    Of course another problem with your example is the where did the puddle come from in the first place, did it just magically appear? How much of the puddle is there anyway, is the hole half full or full to the brim, and why?

    Oh and the presence of the hole and puddle in no way explains the life actually in the puddle.

  734. 734
    Box says:

    Thorton’s bomb:

    Conclusions

    Using genome-wide sequencing method we have identified many genes differentially expressed in the developing digits of the bat autopodia. Several of these genes are highly related to digit formation and thus likely play important roles in the development of bat wing. Our results provide robust candidate genes for future functional tests and molecular evolution comparison with other mammals to fully understand the mechanisms of wing formation and the evolution of bat flight. [source: BMC Genomics]
    – – – [my emphasis]

    Thorton, is that it?

  735. 735
    Joe says:

    thorton is stupid, ignorant and dishonest. And those are hos good points…

  736. 736
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    ID-Creationists have nothing to fear

    Well ID-CReationists only exist in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

  737. 737
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Thorton’s bomb:

    Thorton, is that it?

    No, there’s actually a few million papers from hundreds of different scientific disciplines published in the last eighty years with consilient evidence for evolution.

    Not that ID-Creationists care about anything but propping up their pre-decided religious position.

  738. 738
    phoodoo says:

    Thorton,

    You think you should be allowed to come back here so you can post you pathetic attempts at fat jokes, just because you are allowed to infect the skeptical zone with your rubbish?

    Hopefully, you won’t be allowed to continue in this vain much longer-save you frat boy talk for a place where people might enjoy you (TSZ).

    The level here is way above your garbage.

  739. 739
    Joe says:

    and more cowardly equivocation:

    No, there’s actually a few million papers from hundreds of different scientific disciplines published in the last eighty years with consilient evidence for evolution.

    ID is not anti-evolution you dim-witted twit. There aren’t any papers that support unguided evolution.

  740. 740
    Joe says:

    phoodoo- thorton et al., think I am fat because I weigh 220 lbs and am 6 feet tall. My waist is only 35 inches.

    The point being is personal attacks are all they have.

  741. 741
    Joe says:

    If thorton, rich, keiths and Alan Fox didn’t lie and misrepresent, they wouldn’t have anything to say.

  742. 742
    phoodoo says:

    Joe,

    I personally am glad that Barry has decided to allow many commentators back in, but obviously no website needs the moronic kind of posts that Thorton is so capable of throwing out without having to even open his eyes. His posts do show that absolute randomness can produce something, every time he blindly pecks on his computer some random junk that almost looks like words shows up online. I guess this is what evolution can produce, a creature with two fingers and no brain, that can drool on computer keys.

    That love that at TSZ.

  743. 743
    Joe says:

    I agree. Because of thorton apes are against common ancestry. 😉

  744. 744
    Box says:

    Thorton’s bomb (#734)

    Box: Thorton, is that it?

    No, there’s actually a few million papers from hundreds of different scientific disciplines published in the last eighty years with consilient evidence for evolution.

    And out of a few million papers you choose one which contains no evidence for evolution at all? Why is that?

  745. 745
    phoodoo says:

    DRC466,

    Terrific points.

    The most ridiculous of Keith’s comments is that molecular phylogeny closely match those of homology trees. Not only is this patently false, because every time a greater knowledge of the molecular phylogeny of animals becomes known, they have to rethink the entire tree, but even if it were sort of true (it isn’t) then how in the world could Evolution explain the times when it clearly doesn’t match?

    You have a theory that only 20 years ago thought that convergent evolution should be nearly impossible given the “rewind the tape of evolution” thoughts (ala Stephen Gould) and now we see so much convergent evolution on every level of species, that the evolutionists are forced to just say, Oh well, ok, we didn’t expect this, let’s just pretend its not a problem (what’s the problem?, oh brother, talk about willful ignorance) just like we pretend the difference between molecular phylogeny and homologies don’t match up.

    They just close their eyes and ears and keep going.

  746. 746
    logically_speaking says:

    Thorton,

    “This vehicle could do it [Los Angeles to New York. Therefore, by extrapolation, it will take me to London]. Also a regular Land Rover could do it back when Pangaea was still intact.

    Feel free to explain the magic barrier that prevent microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones. No one else here can”.

    Again terrible examples, No vehicle can travel anywhere, without an energy source like petrol. Or indeed a map to get to New York then London. Oh and most importantly a DRIVER, not only to drive but to turn the thing on in the first place.

    The barriers to unguided darwinian evolution are, not enough time, not enough chance, has no direction, can only use things it already has, and only gets started when it’s already in progress.

  747. 747
    Thorton says:

    Box@744

    The paper wasn’t a Barry ” bomb”, it was a reply to a specific request from Vishnu. You have no idea what the paper says because you didn’t read it.

  748. 748
    Box says:

    Thorton #747: The paper wasn’t a Barry ” bomb”, it was a reply to a specific request from Vishnu.

    If the paper contained an answer to Vishnu’s request – which it did not – it would most certainly be a Barry bomb.
    Since a positive answer to Vishnu’s request …

    Vishnu #632: Can you please demonstrate and instance where RV+NS is responsible for a single instance of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan?
    Specific details please about how it/they were cobbled by RV+NS.

    … would be in full accord with the kind of “bomb” Barry is talking about in the OP.

    Thorton #747: You have no idea what the paper says because you didn’t read it.

    An unsubstantiated accusation, sir. Allow me to point out that I cited the conclusion of the paper in post #734 and added several emphasis.
    BTW are you admitting that there is no such bomb? And if you do not, can you tell us where it is?

  749. 749
    drc466 says:

    Phoodoo @745 – thanks. One thing that evolutionists do seem to do better than ID’ists is cheerlead (see most of rich’s posts above, e.g.), so it’s nice to have some positive feedback.

    And, while I should probably stop kicking a dead horse, from a logic exercise perspective, debunking keith’s “bomb” has become fairly entertaining, so here goes another:

    As keith s states himself in his blogpost link, almost any group of objects can be grouped in a nested heirarchy. Keith feels that what makes evolution different is that trees of life are “objective” nested heirarchies – that is, that the selection, prioritization and ordering of grouping criteria doesn’t matter, you’ll still come up with identical or “highly congruent” trees.
    Let’s try it, shall we? All of the following are used in placing groups of organisms into trees of life: Reproduction, body structure, capability for flight, respiration, organs (e.g. brain).
    Since we’re being objective, let’s prioritize reproduction, followed by flight, followed by respiration. What do our trees look like?
    Oh dear – we seem to have the egg-laying insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals in one group, the ovoviviparous insects and reptiles and amphibians and mammals in another group, and the live-birth reptiles and mammals in a third. Not very congruent, I’m afraid. We could do flight – oops, now my bats and birds and insects are together. And who knows what to do with flying ants! Respiration! Hmm, now I have to split the fish off prior to insects and mammals, and some baby frogs go with fish.
    Obviously, I’m going to have to apply some common sense to how I create these trees – oh wait, if I do that then it’s no longer “objective”, is it? Which kinda kills the whole “Objective Nested Heirarchies”, doesn’t it?

    This is fun – thanks for bringing this to my attention, keith :).

  750. 750

    Thorton said:

    Feel free to explain the magic barrier that prevent microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones. No one else here can.

    Microevolutionary variances have never been demonstrated to accumulate into macroevolutionary features. It’s not the IDists job to disprove that which materialists blindly assume. Until you can demonstrate that they do (or at least plausibly can), you have no case for Darwinism in the first place.

  751. 751

    That’s another Darwinist Debating Tactic – shifting the burden. Darwinists simply assume microevolutionary variances can and do build up into macroevolutionary features and then insist it is the job of the IDist to prove otherwise.

  752. 752
    velikovskys says:

    Wjm,
    Microevolutionary variances have never been demonstrated to accumulate into macroevolutionary features. It’s not the IDists job to disprove that which materialists blindly assume. Until you can demonstrate that they do (or at least plausibly can), you have no case for Darwinism in the first place.

    Do you feel likewise that Designists unless they demonstrate that such a designer exists with both the opportunity and capabilities to create the existing life on earth that there is no case for Design? If not,why? Thanks

  753. 753
    rich says:

    “Not that bomb… A different bomb!”

  754. 754
    velikovskys says:

    Wjm:
    That’s another Darwinist Debating Tactic – shifting the burden. Darwinists simply assume microevolutionary variances can and do build up into macroevolutionary features and then insist it is the job of the IDist to prove otherwise.

    Design ,sans an actual designer, requires the assumption that observed evolutionary mechanisms cannot produce the pattern of elements we observe. If one side is require to provided evidence for their assumption, it seems logical that the other should as well.

  755. 755
    rich says:

    KF – these are outstanding:

    *You model spontaneous generation (of text)
    *You don’t account for functionally equivalent variants
    *You can’t specify in anything other than English
    *You wont take up design challenges
    *Non of this has anything to do with life
    *But..but..but..BIG NUMBERS.

    You’ve even made a post that you can keep pointing to where these aren’t mentioned, let alone addressed. Sadly telling. Emperor KF has no clothes.

  756. 756
    rich says:

    It is completely fair to ask for the corresponding design narrative – and when they start playing ‘gaps whack a mole’ you should get a commitment for it before giving NDE details.

  757. 757

    velikovskys,

    Design advocates provide such evidence against natural forces with their work in bio-information and CSI – such as, Axe & Gauger, and Abel & Trevors.

    Darwinists are not even attempting to support their claim – they just blindly assume it. Of the two camps, it appears that only IDists are actively attempting to understand the limitations of RM & NS in generating CSI.

    Of the two camps, only the Darwinist camp attempts to shift the burden, demanding the IDists disprove their baseless assumption. IDists don’t ask Darwinists to disprove design, only to support the Darwinist claim that RM & NS is sufficient.

  758. 758
    DavidD says:

    William J Murray
    “That’s another Darwinist Debating Tactic – shifting the burden.”

    velikovskys
    “Do you feel likewise that Designists unless they demonstrate that such a designer exists?”

    And low and behold, here is one of the more well known Thorton Wannabes, this debates other classic Burden Shifter. The main problem here is that it’s their side who is the one in charge of the direction Science takes, preaches and demands the dogma you believe in, not the other way around. Their side is the one who has complete power over media and academia. Most of the posted examples in this forum and a couple others of actual published evolutionary science articles are infuse with Darwin this Darwin that and evolution, evolution evolution without ever having providing burden of proof of just how they ever arrive at the conclusions that evolution did anything. The mere act of saying it’s so through a religious faith affirmation appears to be all that is necessary to satisfy their Religious Orthodoxy. Attempt to ask just how they know such and such was evolution and/or could they further explain how they actually arrived at their conclusions and rather than answer in simple intelligent educated language, we get this childish burden shifting followed by the usual dirt and derogatory statements of school yard gutter speak normally used by adolescents. And yet still, when you point all of this out, you get nothing more of the same stone walling which speaks volumes as to their lack of anything viable in the proof department. It never has been about the Science with these people.

  759. 759
    keith s says:

    I’ll be back later to continue the debate, but for now, a message to IDers of all stripes:

    I suspect that many of you had already acknowledged to yourselves, prior to this thread, that unguided evolution was ahead of ID in the inter-theory race. But you comforted yourselves with the thought that ID was at least still in the running, and that there was some hope for a last-minute reversal as new evidence came to light.

    Now you are confronted with the fact that ID is no longer in the race. It’s over. Unguided evolution won, and ID lost — by a factor of trillions.

    I was raised a creationist, so I understand the feeling. Something that you once took for granted is now not just under doubt, it’s untenable. The bottom has dropped out and you are trying to regain your footing. It’s an awful, kicked-in-the-gut feeling. A bomb has gone off in your belief system.

    All I can say is, hang in there — it gets better. In the end, accepting the truth is so much easier than fighting it endlessly.

    And if there is a God, powerful and all-knowing, merciful and just, do you really think he will punish you for honestly seeking the truth?

  760. 760
    rich says:

    WJM – ID never makes a positive case for design.

  761. 761

    velikovskys asks:

    Do you feel likewise that Designists unless they demonstrate that such a designer exists with both the opportunity and capabilities to create the existing life on earth that there is no case for Design? If not,why? Thanks

    IDists are not asking for the specific mutation by mutation, selection by selection generation of any particular evolutionary feature; they are only requesting that Darwinists support their general contention that natural forces are categorically sufficient to produce what they claim them to have produced.

    IDists use various CSI formulations and argument to (1) demonstrate natural forces/chance of any known combination categorically insufficient in producing the CSI necessary for the result in question, and (2) to demonstrate intelligent agency as categorically sufficient to produce similar CSI.

    Darwinists make no such attempts. The just assume and then demand their assumption be disproven.

  762. 762

    Well, if all else fails, there’s always just declaring yourself the winner.

    That’s pretty much Darwinism in a nutshell; no matter how much evidence you uncover that is a clear indication otherwise, simply declare it as evidence in favor of Darwinism.

    The derangement continues.

  763. 763
    rich says:

    Care to address Keiths’ bomb, WJM?

  764. 764

    There’s another Darwinian Debate Tactic – pretending that an issue hasn’t already been addressed.

  765. 765
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Unguided evolution won how?

    PCD is an unguided evolution stopper. Do you actually understand the issue at hand here? I am certain you don’t. Sounds to me that you are choosing beliefs not because they are true but because you find them helpful.

    I will say this again pay attention, PCD stops unguided evolution in its tracks. Your argument is refuted by it alone.

  766. 766
    Box says:

    Is it immoral to ban a person for being empty-headed?

  767. 767
    DavidD says:

    Richard Hughes

    “Care to address Keiths’ bomb, WJM?”

    What Bomb ? He did nothing but lift his leg and create a stain on the sidewalk of intelligent discourse. He offered nothing of value other than defecating his load on someone else’s lawn, scratched the ground in a statement of arrogance and expected to be applauded for his effort. All he did is reveal the inner animal he purports to be anyway like all the others over at the Septic Zone forum. Why would one celebrate that ?

  768. 768
    rich says:

    I must have missed it WJM – could you paste it again? Thanks!

  769. 769
    Andre says:

    To the onlookers that don’t know what PCD is, here you go. Now you’ve heard Keith S tell you all about how unguided evolution did it… I call his bluff and present you with emperical evidence that blows unguided evolution not just out of the water but blasts it out of the universe.

    There is no such thing as unguided evolution, to make such a claim really makes you a science denier, a fraud and a dishonest intellectual because the evidence refutes such claims.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2117903/

  770. 770
    DavidD says:

    William J Murray
    “There’s another Darwinian Debate Tactic – pretending that an issue hasn’t already been addressed.”

    Richard Hughes
    “I must have missed it WJM – could you paste it again? Thanks!”

    And yet another debate tactic, be the Smartass under a cloak of playing dumb for no other reason than to entertain the other Neanderthals back at the cesspit forum.

  771. 771
    Andre says:

    From the paper

    Many of the genes that control the killing and engulfment processes of programmed cell death have been identified, and the molecular mechanisms underlying these processes have proven to be evolutionarily conserved (Metzstein et al., 1998).

    Proven to be evolutionary conserved. Chew on that Keith S. Your bomb has been dismantled and you will have to try harder next time.

    Game over bomb defused.

  772. 772
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    That’s not science’s problem PaV. You’re the guys who are taking a description and claiming it is a specification. I know ID-Creationists love such stupid semantic games but science isn’t impressed.

    All IDers ask from Darwinists is that they show the mathematics supporting their theory. We’re still waiting.

    Meantime, you haven’t a clue what a “specification” means within the context of ID, applying the everyday, usual meaning of the word, while steadfastly avoiding its technical meaning. You’re bloviating, I’m afraid.

  773. 773
    rich says:

    My request was legitimate, David, and very easy to accommodate I would think?

  774. 774
    Andre says:

    Now if Keith S is the seeker of truth as he has labled himself then I hope he will do the right thing and acknowledge his supposed refutation was in error. I can only hope he will do as much because I did not even use ID to refute him I just used proven science.

    Let us hope he has more integrity than we assume.

  775. 775
    rich says:

    Andre, PCD wasn’t Keith’s bomb. That’s dishonest.

  776. 776
    logically_speaking says:

    Velikovskys,

    The Burden of proof is always on the person who says something is true to substantiate their claim.

    Evolutionists claim something is possible, therfore they need to prove it regardless of what IDers or anyone else says.

    ID is an inference to the best explanation, it does not need to identify the designer.

    If certain things in life are designed then clearly this is evidence of the designer your asking for.

    Design detection always comes first before asking the completely separate question of who the designer is.

  777. 777
    rich says:

    Really, logically speaking? ID claims there is a designer – have at it.

  778. 778
    Daniel King says:

    keith s @759:

    And if there is a God, powerful and all-knowing, merciful and just, do you really think he will punish you for honestly seeking the truth?

    No, but he might punish you for disobedience, as Adam and Eve found out after their search for truth.

  779. 779
    Daniel King says:

    ID is an inference to the best explanation, it does not need to identify the designer.

    I see this slogan invoked repeatedly here.

    An inference, scientifically speaking, is a hypothesis.

    Hypotheses are only the beginning, not the end of a search for truth.

    You have unfinished business to attend to.

  780. 780
    ppolish says:

    In a Universe that is fine tuned for intelligence, there can be NO bomb that destroys ID. There can be bombs, sure, but they are founded on intelligence. Cutting off noses to spite faces bombs. Lots of people missing noses in this thread.

  781. 781
    Andre says:

    Rich

    Keith S presented his bomb, PCD defused it……..

    You are the dishonest here by making a false charge against me.

  782. 782
    rich says:

    Andre, you clearly don’t understand what Keiths posted. I know you’ve got your sheet of pre-made talking points, but this wasn’t about them. Barry asked for a bomb, Keiths delivered, you went to your premade talking points about other things.

  783. 783
    Andre says:

    Rich

    Please don’t accuse me of not understanding. Keith S claims that unguided evolution is a better explanation for the diversity of life……

    PCD proves there is no such thing as unguided evolution.

    Stay with me Rich, if there is no unguided evolution it can not be the best explanation because unguided evolution does not exist, proven science wins materialistic assumptions lose, again.

    Get it?

  784. 784
    rich says:

    Andre, you are dishonest. Barry asked for a bomb. Not a specific bomb. Sorry its not the one you wanted.

    You can’t address his point, which is specifically :

    “And because gradual common descent predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a ‘common designer’, it is literally not just millions, or billions, but trillions of times better at explaining the evidence.”

    You’d rather talk about PCD, which would be great, if that was the bomb.

    Sorry.

  785. 785
    Box says:

    Rich,
    The bomb and PCD are distinct – not the same. Now Andre states that PCD defused the bomb. That is not the same as saying that PCD is the bomb. Do you understand?

    BTW the bomb has been diffused several times now. See e.g. #713, #712, #725

  786. 786
    logically_speaking says:

    Rich,

    “Really, logically speaking? ID claims there is a designer – have at it”.

    Is this a question or a statement? Do you disagree with anything I said?

    Daniel King,

    “I see this slogan invoked repeatedly here”.

    Is this slogan somehow wrong?

    “Hypotheses are only the beginning, not the end of a search for truth”.

    Yes intelligent design detection is the beginning, maybe you can tell some of your friends this point as they don’t seem to understand it. And unfortunately for you evolution doesn’t even have a beginning to start with, as I pointed out previously, evolution only starts when it’s in progress.

    “You have unfinished business to attend to”.

    Not really, speaking personally I have accepted that life the universe and everything is indeed designed, I myself have then found who I believe to be the designer. It is the ultimate possible being, that knows all possibilities and has the power to bring any possibility it chooses into existence.

  787. 787
    Box says:

    correction #785: BTW the bomb has been defused several times now

  788. 788
    Querius says:

    keith s @ 759:

    Oh, so you were swindled out of your faith by authoritative academics who projected their arrogant overconfidence into the non-scientific area of theology. And you swallowed it.

    I’m sure you’ll vehemently deny this, but consider the following. The same debate scenario played out 150 years ago with different “facts” and arguments, and 150 years from now there will be new facts and arguments. Science is a living method and a discipline that’s always changing with new discoveries, sometimes even revolutionary change. “The science is settled” is a quasi-religious, political statement, not a scientific one.

    I once believed in traditional Darwinistic evolution. What convinced me otherwise was the fragile science and flawed math behind it. I was, and continue to be perfectly willing to treat the first part of Genesis as a polemic against anthropomorphic polytheism if compelling scientific evidence come to light. But it hasn’t.

    Instead, a lot of effort in evolutionary biology seems to be expended in fitting the evidence into the paradigm. Hardly a day passes that scientists aren’t surprised at some new finding—Mary Schweitzer’s work, for example, created a flurry of activity to try to explain how bone and now the Fe ions in hemoglobin must have protected dinosaur tissue from background radiation. Surely, with a half-life of about 500 years, there would be no DNA left in these soft tissues, nor would there be any significant amount of C-14. Right? And if there was, you’d naturally follow the evidence, right? No, you wouldn’t.

    And if there is a God, powerful and all-knowing, merciful and just, do you really think he will punish you for honestly seeking the truth?

    What a cop out. God’s trying to save you and as many people possible from the judgment and destruction originally meant for the devil and his angels. It’s not about being right or wrong about some scientific theory. It’s about forgiveness and reconciliation with God. And you’re trying to hide behind “honestly seeking the truth”? From what I’ve seen from your posts here, the truth is not something you’re seeking.

    -Q

  789. 789
    rich says:

    Okay box, Show how PCD explains from a design perspective statistically improbable nested hierarchy of life.

    because that’s what we’re discussing.

  790. 790
    rich says:

    LS, you said:

    “The Burden of proof is always on the person who says something is true to substantiate their claim.”

    You must also believe that is is true of ID and all its entailments?

  791. 791
    Andre says:

    Rich

    I never said it was about PCD, but PCD by itself as proven science refutes unguided evolution. Keith S claimed unguided evolution is a trillion times better at explaining diversity. PCD proves unguided evolution does not exist Rich.

    I refuse to believe that anybody in the world can be this ignorant….

  792. 792
    rich says:

    You keep omitting the “how” Keith made his claim. Barry asked for one instance. Keiths provided it, SPECIFICALLY win regard to Nested Hierarchies. PCD has no real impact on Nested Hierarchies.. You want to talk about something else – which DDD is this, I wonder?

    THAT IS DISHONEST.

  793. 793
    Axel says:

    I wonder if ‘keiths’ is an abbreviation of ‘keith’s mum’, in Eric Jarvis Thribb’s elegies for celebrities. Her obiter dicta seemingly always having been a matter of note.

    For non-British forumites, Eric Jarvis Thribb’s elegies used to appear in the satirical magazine, Private Eye.

  794. 794
    logically_speaking says:

    Rich,

    Yes I believe ID can be used to infer that something is designed, which is what ID claims to do.

    Now, do you agree or disagree that evolution only starts when it’s in progress?

  795. 795
    Andre says:

    Rich

    You don’t even need ID to explain how PCD refutes Keith S.

    PCD stops unguided procesess in their tracks and because it is evolutionary conserved you don’t have a clue if it became conserved yesterday or two billion years ago, so unguided processes can as a matter of fact not be the best explanation for the diversity of life. To make such a claim is nothing more than a assumption, it is not based on emperical science.

    It seems to me beliefs are the best evidence you guys have, it is certainly not based on any good verifiable scientific evidence that is for sure.

    But what warrants people to make claims that are not based on the truth? That is the real question.

  796. 796
    Andre says:

    Rich

    Many other com enters have taken Keith S down on nested hierarchies, I don’t need to hammer on that, I just had to show you that unguided evolution does not exist because PCD shuts down unguided processes.

    It is OK to be wrong, I was once wrong too when I believed in Darwin magic. You’re not the first person fooled by its seemingly simple yet elegant story.

  797. 797
    Andre says:

    This will be my last comment on this thread because going around in circles is not good for anybody.

    Keith S I am hoping you will see the light, that PCD is an unguided evolution defeater (proven science). Can you be better than us and apologise for being proven wrong? I hope so…….

  798. 798
    rich says:

    And there we have another assertion something had happened .. That hasn’t. And again, your doing the old creationist trick of moving the goalposts. Which Barry says is a DDD. PCD has nothing to do with statistical congruence of nested hierarchies.

    Dishonest.

  799. 799
    Andre says:

    Seems to me I have to comment once more, Rich for the last time if unguided evolution does not exist because there is a process that prevents it then then unguided evolution can not be the best explanation for anything…..

    Comprende?

  800. 800
    Box says:

    A short article on programmed cell death (PCD) here.

  801. 801
    Andre says:

    Let it go you lost this round, regroup gather your strength and live to fight another day is the best advice I can give.

  802. 802
    Thorton says:

    Box @ 748

    Thorton #747: You have no idea what the paper says because you didn’t read it.

    An unsubstantiated accusation, sir. Allow me to point out that I cited the conclusion of the paper in post #734 and added several emphasis.

    I stand by my claim that you didn’t read the paper. You may have skimmed the conclusion looking for phrases to quote-mine but you certainly didn’t read the entire paper. If you had read it you wouldn’t be making the stupid claim that the paper doesn’t provide support for the evolution of bats.

  803. 803
    Thorton says:

    Box @ 748

    BTW are you admitting that there is no such bomb? And if you do not, can you tell us where it is?

    Nothing highlights the scientific ignorance and ineptitude of Creationsits more than their demand to see THE piece of evidence that confirms the theory of evolution. The strength of evolutionary theory comes from the consilience of the evidence, not one lone datum. There are literally millions of independent pieces of data from dozens of scientific fields that are cross-correlating and corroborating and which produce one big coherent picture. Like a giant jigsaw scientists have been methodically putting together the puzzle for over 150 years. Yes there are still holes and details to fill in but the overall big picture – the evolution of life on the planet over the last 3+ billion years – has been crystal clear for a century. It’s only the moron Creationists who demand to see the whole picture by looking at only one piece at a time.

  804. 804
    rich says:

    Andre is sticking to his talking point, one trick pony who can’t follow the actual point. PCD has no barring on the consilience of these nested hierarchies.

    Of course if he wants to have an unrelated chat about PCD, he can show us how the designer set it up and and when they set it up. I’ll then try and match his excating level of detail with an evolutionary narrative….

  805. 805
    Box says:

    Ok Thorton #802, where in the paper is evidence for the evolution of bats? Show me.

  806. 806
    Thorton says:

    William J Murray

    Thorton said:

    Feel free to explain the magic barrier that prevent microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones. No one else here can.

    Microevolutionary variances have never been demonstrated to accumulate into macroevolutionary features.

    As expected, WJM can describe no barrier to the micro –> macro process. The puerile “we haven’t seen it happen” is a worthless dodge when discussing events that take tens of thousands of years to occur. We can observe the process in real time and we can observe ample evidence that the process did indeed create the variation we see today. That’s all the supporting evidence we need.

    Why don’t you ID-Creationists reject plate tectonics? After all, no one has ever seen a continent move thousands of miles.

    Bloody ignorant hypocrites.

  807. 807
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Ok Thorton #802, where in the paper is evidence for the evolution of bats? Show me.

    Try reading the paper instead of just lying about it.

  808. 808
    Box says:

    Thorton #807,

    Ok Thorton #802, where in the paper is evidence for the evolution of bats? Show me.

    Thorton: Try reading the paper instead of just lying about it.

    Why not point out the evidence and expose my ignorance? You would if you could…

  809. 809
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Why not point out the evidence and expose my ignorance? You would if you could

    The whole paper is the evidence. The comparison and identification of mutations in bats that caused the digit elongation. Mutations that aren’t there in the same genes as mice and other mammals with non-elongated digits.

    It’s not THE piece of evidence for evolution but it’s one of the millions of consilient data points. You’d know that if you had read the paper instead of lying about it.

  810. 810
    Box says:

    Thorton #809: It’s not THE piece of evidence for evolution but it’s one of the millions of consilient data points.

    So we – more or less- agree that actual proof for the evolution of bats isn’t in the article. Just extrapolations based on some genetic similarities between assumed related species – that is assumed by Darwinism. For a moment I thought that you meant to say that actual evidence was provided.

    When speaking of bats and genetic similarities with other species, one should not dispense with this amusing article in Science Daily, which also serves as a warning for hasty Darwinian assumptions:

    In bats and whales, convergence in echolocation ability runs deep.

    Only some bats and toothed whales rely on sophisticated echolocation, in which they emit sonar pulses and process returning echoes, to detect and track down small prey. Now, two new studies show that bats’ and whales’ remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated — all the way down to the molecular level.

  811. 811
    keith s says:

    William’s failure to invent a barrier reminds me of the closing paragraphs of my OP:

    This is a big problem for IDers. They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution.

    Having invented a barrier, they must invent a Designer to surmount it. And having invented a Designer, they must arbitrarily constrain his behavior (as explained above) to match the data. Three wild, unsupported assumptions: 1) that a barrier exists; 2) that a Designer exists; and 3) that the Designer always acts in ways that mimic evolution. (We often hear that evolution is a designer mimic, so it’s amusing to ponder a Designer who is an evolution mimic.) Unguided evolution requires no such wild assumptions in order to explain the data. Since it doesn’t require these arbitrary assumptions, it is superior to ID as an explanation.

    Here’s an analogy that may help. Imagine you live during the time of Newton. You hear that he’s got this crazy idea that gravity, the force that makes things fall on earth, is also responsible for the orbits of the moon around the earth and of the earth and the other planets around the sun. You scoff, because you’re convinced that there is an invisible, undetected barrier around the earth, outside of which gravity cannot operate. Because of this barrier, you are convinced of the need for angels to explain why the moon and the planets follow the paths they do. If they weren’t pushed by angels, they would go in straight lines. And because the moon and planets follow the paths they do, which are the same paths predicted by Newton on the basis of gravity, you assume that the angels always choose those paths, even though there are trillions of other paths available to them.

    Instead of extrapolating from earthly gravity to cosmic gravity, you assume there is a mysterious barrier. Because of the barrier, you invent angels. And once you invent angels, you have to restrict their behavior so that planetary paths match what would have been produced by gravity. Your angels end up being gravity mimics. Laughable, isn’t it?

    Yet the ‘logic’ of ID is exactly the same. Instead of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, IDers assume that there is a mysterious barrier that prevents unguided macroevolution from happening. Then they invent a Designer to leap across the barrier. Then they restrict the Designer’s behavior to match the evidence, which just happens to be what we would expect to see if unguided macroevolution were operating. The Designer ends up being an unguided evolution mimic.

    The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it.

    If you are still an IDer after reading, understanding, and digesting all of this, then it is safe to say that you are an IDer despite the evidence, not because of it. Your position is a matter of faith and is therefore a religious stance, not a scientific one.

  812. 812
    Mapou says:

    keith s @811:

    Instead of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution,

    A rather stupid thing to do since they are completely different mechanisms. The former is a genetically pre-programmed (read, intelligently designed) adaptation mechanism whereas the latter (random mutations + natural selection) is just voodoo crap on a par with holy water for treating zombies.

  813. 813
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    Your obsession with PCD is a bit odd, because it doesn’t do what you claim it does. An earlier comment of yours:

    Rich and Thornton….

    The paper says;

    Because PCD appears as an ‘altruistic’ cell response, the evolutionary origin of PCD has been equated with that of ‘altruistic’ cell behaviour.

    Do any of you know what altruistic means?

    There goes the selfish gene theory, demolished by PCD. There goes the unguided theory…. demolished by PCD, There goes random mutation, demolished by PCD, there goes drift demolished by PCD, there goes natural selection demolished by PCD…… There goes macro evolution demolished by PCD….. what have you got left?

    None of those is threatened by PCD, but I don’t want to derail this thread with lengthy explanations, particularly when you seem to be the only confused person with PCD OCD.

    Why don’t you lobby one of the authors here for an OP on PCD?

  814. 814
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Thorton #809: It’s not THE piece of evidence for evolution but it’s one of the millions of consilient data points.

    So we – more or less- agree that actual proof for the evolution of bats isn’t in the article. Just extrapolations based on some genetic similarities between assumed related species – that is assumed by Darwinism. For a moment I thought that you meant to say that actual evidence was provided.

    Science doesn’t do “proof”. Thanks for confirming you’re just one more scientifically ignorant liar-for-Jesus blindly attacking things you don’t understand. But do keep demanding THE special piece of evolutionary evidence which exists only in ignorant Creationists’ minds.

    When speaking of bats and genetic similarities with other species, one should not dispense with this amusing article in Science Daily, which also serves as a warning for hasty Darwinian assumptions:

    I bet you didn’t read the associated scientific paper either. It’s a case of convergent evolution that happened because the protein Prestin provides high frequency sensitivity in the frequency range used by certain bats and certain cetaceans. Nature found a similar genetic solution to a similar physics problem. Interesting but really not that unexpected. It doesn’t surprise me you don’t understand the underlying science though.

  815. 815
    rich says:

    We’re happy to host a discussion of PCD at TSZ if Andre wants.

  816. 816
    keith s says:

    KF,

    PS: I note DDD #12 on selective hyperskepticism, and highlight the problem of the fallacy of the closed, ideologised mind:

    The way to break out of your closed, ideologized mindset is to take opposing arguments seriously by engaging them rather than fearfully avoiding them.

    You’ve reverted to your canned talking points, and everyone here knows why. If you tackle my argument directly, you will fail.

  817. 817
    keith s says:

    rich,

    We’re happy to host a discussion of PCD at TSZ if Andre wants.

    Great idea. How about it, Andre? Everyone else is welcome there, too. We haven’t banned anyone (except Joe, for posting porn links).

  818. 818
    Box says:

    Thorton on bats and whales:

    It’s a case of convergent evolution that happened (…)

    Oh, I forgot, you guys named it “convergent evolution”, well … that sort of explains it then.
    The Inexorable March of Convergent Evolution Continues – Now at the Molecular Level.

  819. 819
    keith s says:

    Just to hammer my point home, here is a comment of mine from TSZ:

    Some more questions for the ID supporters out there:

    1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why.

    And ponder this: If you are an ID supporter, then you are making exactly the same mistake as Bob does in the four examples above, using the same broken logic. Isn’t that a little embarrassing? It might be time to rethink your position.

    And don’t forget the Rain Fairy.

  820. 820
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Andre

    Wikipedia is a good introductory resource into apoptosis and the rôle of telomeres.

  821. 821
    Thorton says:

    Box

    Oh, I forgot, you guys named it “convergent evolution”, well … that sort of explains it then.

    My word but you are one ignorant Creationist.

    Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins
    Liu et al
    Current Biology Vol 20, Issue 2, pR53–R54, 26 January 2010

    Summary

    Cases of convergent evolution — where different lineages have evolved similar traits independently — are common and have proven central to our understanding of selection. Yet convincing examples of adaptive convergence at the sequence level are exceptionally rare [1] . The motor protein Prestin is expressed in mammalian outer hair cells (OHCs) and is thought to confer high frequency sensitivity and selectivity in the mammalian auditory system [2] . We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [3] . Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins, which group with echolocating bats in a phylogenetic tree of Prestin. Furthermore, we find evidence that these changes were driven by natural selection.

    If you tried reading the actual scientific literature instead of lying about it and relying on Creationist garbage sites you wouldn’t seem quite so clueless.

  822. 822
    Alan Fox says:

    PS @ Andre,

    It might be worth checking out the distinction between soma and germline, too.

  823. 823
    keith s says:

    drc466,

    I see you are still struggling with the concept of the objective nested hierarchy.

    Please read this section of Theobald, if you haven’t already — or review it more carefully this time, if you have.

    Also, you might want to consult your fellow IDer vjtorley, who understands why the objective nested hierarchy is real and poses a threat to ID.

    After you understand what Theobald, vjtorley and I are saying, then we can hash out any remaining disagreements.

  824. 824
    Joe says:

    keiths- You have no clue. Linnean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy and it has nothing to do with unguided evolution. You have no idea what a nested hierarchy entails.

    I have read Theobald. He makes many mistakes and untestable claims.

    BTW, unguided evolution can’t explain anything but disease and deformities.

  825. 825
    keith s says:

    gpuccio,

    The situation is very simple. As you know, I have commented extensively on you “argument” in the past. I find it irrelevant, wrong and arrogant.

    Yes, and I have explained in detail why your criticisms fail. You evidently don’t have a counterargument, or you would have offered it already.

    And I have explained why. I will not do it again.

    Why not? As you can see, your fellow IDers are desperate for a takedown of my argument. How can you betray them in their time of need, especially if you have a rebuttal at the ready?

    Perhaps the problem is that you, like your fellow IDers huddled in the bomb shelter, don’t have a rebuttal at the ready.

  826. 826
    Joe says:

    rich:

    ID never makes a positive case for design.

    IDists have and all you can do is choke on it. Your choking is not a refutation.

  827. 827
    Joe says:

    keiths- a legend in his own little mind. Your argument has been refuted- it has shown to be full of ignorance and bald declarations.

    The bomb b;ew up in your face. Deal with it, loser.

  828. 828
    Joe says:

    If gradual evolution predicts a smooth blending of traits AND it does not have a direction, traits can be lost, why would it predict an objective nested hierarchy seeing that both of those would negate such a thing?

    Reference Darwin 1859- small incremental changes produce numerous transitional forms. Transitional forms by their very definition have a mixture of traits. That means the more transitional forms the smoother the blending.

    Only someone completely ignorant of gradual evolution and nested hierarchies would say that gradual evolution predicts one. Enter keiths.

    Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy, exemplified a Common Design. It still does.

    You lose, keiths.

  829. 829
    Joe says:

    thorton the cowardly equivocator:

    It’s not THE piece of evidence for evolution

    It isn’t evidence for natural selection. That’s the point. You were asked for evidence for natural selection doing something more than creating a difference in allele frequency. You failed, as usual.

  830. 830
    Joe says:

    vel:

    Do you feel likewise that Designists unless they demonstrate that such a designer exists with both the opportunity and capabilities to create the existing life on earth that there is no case for Design?

    The design is evidence for the designer. As yes it is safe to assume that designers are capable of designing the things they designed.

    AGAIN evolutionism is the claim that has a step-by-step process. It is bottom-up.

    Design detection is top-down. First we determine design exists and then we try to fill in the blanks. That is how it works with archaeology, forensics and SETI.

    We don’t go looking for a designer before we have determined there is design. That means we don’t have to know of one before-hand.

  831. 831
    keith s says:

    keiths:

    And if there is a God, powerful and all-knowing, merciful and just, do you really think he will punish you for honestly seeking the truth?

    Daniel King:

    No, but he might punish you for disobedience, as Adam and Eve found out after their search for truth.

    And of course it wouldn’t have been disobedience at all if God hadn’t forbidden them from eating of the Tree of Knowledge in the first place.

    He had a funny attitude toward knowledge and truth-seekers:

    But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

    So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

    Genesis 11:5-9, NIV

    Luther was even worse:

    Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

  832. 832
    Mapou says:

    Why is it that Darwinists are so fond of discussing the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular? I thought those retards were only interested in science.

  833. 833
    rich says:

    Is it your convention that people who discus the bible are “retards”, Mapou?

  834. 834
    rich says:

    Convention > contention. Thanks iPhone!

  835. 835
    Alan Fox says:

    Louis asks:

    Why is it that Darwinists are so fond of discussing the Bible and the book of Genesis in particular? I thought those retards were only interested in science.

    Would you call me a Darwinist? I certainly think Darwin was on the right track inOrigin of Species. I don’t often find myself discussing the Bible, especially in relation to scientific reality. On the other hand, the question I’d like to see answered (one I’ve been asking since my first attempt to comment here in 2005) is what is the theory of “Intelligent Design”.

    Ten years ago, Paul Nelson said this:

    Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

    What’s changed since 2004?

  836. 836
    Daniel King says:

    Alan Fox @835:

    What’s changed since the Wedge Document of 1999?

    FIFTEEN YEARS of failure to deliver anything whatsoever..

  837. 837
    logically_speaking says:

    Funny how the evolutionists have ignored the barriers to unguided evolution that I have put on the table, while claiming nobody has.

    Selective blindness I suppose.

    I suppose when it finally becomes obvious to these people that evolution is dead before it even starts, this thread will end.

    All the supposed evidence for evolutionism presupposes evolution. It’s that simple. Non of it can be used a objective evidence. It has become just another religion.

  838. 838
    Thorton says:

    logically_speaking

    Funny how the evolutionists have ignored the barriers to unguided evolution that I have put on the table, while claiming nobody has.

    You made a bunch of unsupported and frankly silly assertions. I know that used to work at UD when only your fellow creationists were group-groping but not anymore.

  839. 839
    keith s says:

    Daniel King:

    What’s changed since the Wedge Document of 1999?

    FIFTEEN YEARS of failure to deliver anything whatsoever..

    To underscore the magnitude of the failure, here is the goals and objectives section of the Wedge Document:

    GOALS

    Governing Goals

    To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

    To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurman beings are created by God.

    Five Year Goals

    To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

    To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

    To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

    Twenty Year Goals

    To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

    To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

    To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

    FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

    1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

    2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

    3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

    4. Significant coverage in national media:

    Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
    PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

    Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

    Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

    5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

    Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

    Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
    Darwinism

    Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

    Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

    6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

    7. Scientific achievements:

    An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

    Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

    Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

    Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

    Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

    The optimism is laughable, isn’t it? How did they expect to make all that progress without a viable theory of design? Did they think that God would magically provide one?

  840. 840
    Daniel King says:

    logically_speaking @786

    Yes intelligent design detection is the beginning, maybe you can tell some of your friends this point as they don’t seem to understand it.

    A beginning implies some movement forward from that beginning. Who has taken even the first step, lo these many years? You yourself said that you saw no need to move beyond the ID inference. That ain’t science.

    …speaking personally I have accepted that life the universe and everything is indeed designed, I myself have then found who I believe to be the designer

    .

    That doesn’t appear to be science either.

  841. 841
    Daniel King says:

    keith s:

    The optimism is laughable, isn’t it? How did they expect to make all that progress without a viable theory of design? Did they think that God would magically provide one?

    I think that they did expect their god to intervene, but he isn’t dependable. Ask Holocaust survivors.

  842. 842
    keith s says:

    WJM:

    Nobody on the ID side considers your argument a bomb because it assumes the very thing the “bomb” comment by Mr. Arrington challenges – that Darwinists should demonstrate or prove in some way that natural forces are a plausible cause of the artifacts in question. All you do is assume that challenge met to reach a trivial conclusion IDists already stipulate.

    Please try to understand this point, keiths. Your argument assumes the very thing the bomb comment challenges. Mr. Arrington was referring to a “science bomb” that would demonstrate natural forces up to the task; your argument simply assumes this very point, and then reaches a logical conclusion nobody disagrees with given your premises.

    William,

    I understand the point you are trying to make, but your point is mistaken. I’ve already explained this in a comment to Box. Please read it carefully.

    If your argument were valid, it would be fatal to ID.

    Why? Because ID can’t explain the evidence unless you assume that there was a designer on the scene and you assume that the designer had the necessary capabilities. By insisting that such assumptions are invalid, even temporarily and for the sake of argument, you are driving a stake through the heart of ID as well as unguided evolution.

    Here’s what you’re not getting. We aren’t assuming the truth of ID or unguided evolution for all time. We’re simply asking these questions:

    1. If ID were true, what would we expect to see?

    2. If unguided evolution were true, what would we expect to see?

    We then compare the predictions to reality and decide which hypothesis matches best. In this case it is unguided evolution, by a factor of trillions. It makes a prediction that is confirmed to a spectacular 38 decimal places.

    Now, if you could actually demonstrate that unguided evolution was incapable of producing what we see, then that would be a different story. But you can’t. You keep referring to an imaginary barrier without demonstrating its existence. I could just as easily assume some imaginary